Mounting! You are so last century Bill.

There is no 'mounting' in digital cinema.

All of this discussion was regarding viewing the identical image on a small screen and a large screen and noting the visual difference.

Pleased to see that you agree that there is distortion. Why didnt you say that 300 posts ago :-)

http://youtu.be/KmECbBcS_mM

This is the most I can do for now. Maybe will revisit in August.

It is an extremely short clip that animates disparity change from a 1/12.5 ratio
of base to zero parallax in the first frame, to 1/1873 in the last frame.

It is best viewed by using the slider to scrub the frames, or on a continuous
loop. No change in the geometry of the sphere was employed. The decreasing
disparity (parallax) is due entirely to the decreasing distance between the
right and left camera positions.

When seen on one screen only, this illustrates the change in perceived roundness
with change in disparity.

When used comparatively on different size screens, it demonstrates how any given
disparity setting creates different depth perception according to screen size.

Bye for awhile.

SMcQ

--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "SMcQ" <smcquinn@...> wrote:
>
> Antonio,
>
> Thank you for creating added value and giving the sphere a rigorous workout!
>
> An adjustable sphere would allow calibration to each viewing device. Would be
nice to have, if there are any programmers out there who want to develop this.
>
> The globe is a CG creation, of course, so the measurements are in the scale of
the scene. Your guess about the ratio was excellent.
>
> Distance from center of base to zero parallax plane = 2795.1 inches
> Interaxial distance = 190 inches
> Lens focal length = 500 mm equivalent (full frame 35mm SLR)
> Sphere diameter = 28.15 inches
> Camera positions were strictly parallel
>
> Take the focal length specification with a grain of salt. The choice is
supplied by the CG program and I haven't evaluated its accuracy.
>
> There was no vertical cropping in Stereo Photo Maker or Photoshop after
capture, so you can base calculations on the relative size of the globe on the
screen, vertically.
>
> I've thought of doing a movie where one could get some sort of loose
"calibration" on a given device by scrubbing the timeline with different
variables, but junked that idea as too little payoff for too much work. It
really is a job for a programmer.
>
> Regards,
>
> SMcQ
>
>
>
> --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "afgalaz" <afgalaz_sp@> wrote:
> >
> > I have converted your Iso-Globe SBS to an MPO file to view on my 3DTV and
also on the W3 display. I have uploaded to the files section:
> >
> > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/3dtv/files/ISO-3DTV.MPO
> > I included a few reference points to help visualize the back surface of the
sphere.
> >
> > On the W3 display the sphere looks almost flat, at least looking at normal
W3 distances ~0.3m. Not possible to view it from much farther away.
> >
> > On my 37" 3DTV I experience the opposite effect: at normal TV distance ~2m,
2.5m, the sphere looks like an ellipse stretched in the Z axis.
> > I would say the sphere looks more or less "round" when looking from ~0.9m.
> > If I go even closer (~0.5m), then the sphere starts looking "flat" similarly
to W3 display.
> >
> > You did not mention what stereo base and what distance did you use for the
photos. Please let us know as it is very interesting to take conclusions.
> > As I see the sphere round when looking from 0.9m with my 65mm IPD, which is
an angle ~1/14 radians, I guess your taking base should have also been ~1/14 of
your taking distance. Is that right?
> >
> >
> >      Regards
> >
> >          Antonio
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "SMcQ" <smcquinn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Made a new version of the stereo roundness/depth sphere:
> > >
> > > http://goo.gl/EdwUI
> > >
> > > This links to the photos section of this group under the Captain3D
Assignments folder.
> > >
> > > This is not a true isometric stereo view, which can only be achieved by
turning the globe, effectively a toe-in pair. The reason for that is, isometric
projection does not show any perspective shift from translation of the camera,
because it always projects perpendicularly to the image plane regardless of
camera position.
> > >
> > > So instead, I kept the plane invariant and used a very long lens. Not
quite isometric, but close enough for a cigar. These are true offset views, not
toe-in views. The offset was huge because the lens was a 500mm equivalent, SLR
full frame, rendered in parallel.
> > >
> > > It is still a little squashed on my 23 inch monitor, but it will do for
the sake of comparison. The green Zplane I use as the zero parallax indicator
should be right at your screen plane. The Zplane is semi-transparent, so the
back hemisphere is tinted green, in order to help distinguish positive from
negative parallax.
> > >
> > > SMcQ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "SMcQ" <smcquinn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After inspection, it is clear that the calibration of the zero parallax
plane is spot on. The negative parallax perception for the positioning of the
globe seems to be a result of lens perspective.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, because the cameras are in perspective rather than
isometric mode, the outermost rim of the sphere as seen in the image pair is not
the outermost edge of the sphere itself. The visible front is less than a full
hemisphere, as one would expect.
> > > >
> > > > The lens is a 35mm equivalent (full frame SLR 35mm, about 53 degrees
HFOV, I think) and because it is a CG lens there is no optical distortion.
> > > >
> > > > An isometric stereo pair might be better for judging stereo roundness on
any given monitor.
> > > >
> > > > SMcQ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "SMcQ" <smcquinn@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oops, it isn't quite half and half. The center slice is a bit into
negative parallax. Interesting. I need to recalibrate the Z plane in my camera
rig.
> > > > >
> > > > > SMcQ
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "SMcQ" <smcquinn@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is ball to play with, for anyone who wants to work out Phil's
description as an exercise. It is in the Photos section of this group, in the
folder, Captain3D Assignments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://goo.gl/ZOeby
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a stereo pair at 1920x1080 frame size. The interaxial
distance for the cameras is 1/20 the distance to the zero parallax plane, which
cuts through the middle of the ball.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On my 23" monitor, interlaced, the ball seems round from a 3 foot
viewing distance. It would be interesting to get feedback on what viewing
distance creates roundness on a 3DTV of specified size.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My normal viewing distance is about 2 feet. In order to render the
ball round at that viewing distance, the IA/distance ratio would have to be
decreased, thus increasing the parallax.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could create an animation of a dynamic change in IA/parallax, but
it would be a lot of work because my 3D graphics program does not keyframe the
offset, so I'd have to offset a movie render at close keyframe intervals in
Vegas Pro.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SMcQ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "bionicdeepa" <captain3d@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. If the image is a ball then you can literally get the tape
measure out and measure the 3 dimensions of the stereo ball. It should stick out
of the screen as much as the radius presuming the screen is halfway through the
all. At that point it would look 'normal' = spherical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Small screen for me is a desktop monitor eg 24" at about 48"
viewing. Big screen is a 40ft wide cinema screen viewed from about 40ft. That is
the translation we have to make for Dreamworks movies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some theaters are 30ft and some Imax over 80ft. We picked 40ft
average.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

ok :-)

I'm amazed that after five days of this thread, I still see no _common_
understanding of what we are talking about.  I've not had time to carefully read
every post, but I have skimmed the thread in its entirety and note several
instances of misunderstanding, most notably in the most recent exchanges between
Bill Glick and Phil McNally.

Phil, I have to hand it to you, you are hanging in there much longer than I ever
would have!

The source of misunderstanding is both conceptual and linguistic.  Isn't it
always this way in stereoscopy?

For example, in the most recent posts, Bill mentions that he does understand and
has observed Z-axis distortion.  But the distortion he's referencing is the one
that comes from a taking FOV / viewing FOV mismatch, such as you might have when
you view a Realist slide (taking fl = 35mm) in a Hugo de Wijs stereoscope
(viewing fl = 50mm).  You would see a similar distortion when you view an image
on a fixed size screen, and then view it from different distances.

Note that this is not what this thread is about!  Here we have been discussing
the depth effect / distortion caused by viewing a given image on a different
size screen, WITH THE VIEWING FOV HELD CONSTANT!

Another example.  In response (or rebuttal) to my point about how it might be
ocular convergence informing our sense of depth in an image, Bill has pointed
out that when viewed in a stereoscope, he can change the horizontal alignment of
the stereo view (by moving the film chips - NOT the stereo window), and no
difference in depth effect will be perceived, thus proving that ocular
convergence has no effect on depth perception.  Alright, that is true, and I've
seen the same effect myself!  (and it gives me a new thought, see below).

But we're not talking about stereoscope viewing in this thread.  We're talking
about screen viewing, which is fundamentally different.  In screen viewing, a
"real" (virtual) image is formed in the space in which you reside.  This is not
an effect you can observe in the stereoscope.  In screen viewing, the 3d image
has a physical, geometric, measurable relationship to the real space in which
you reside with the screen - no matter if the "screen" is a lenticular print, an
anaglyph print, a barrier autostereoscopic display, a 3dTV or a cinema screen.

This is where John R's description of distortions caused by off-axis viewing is
in fact very relevant.  No numbers that Bill could muster in any of his analyses
would ever suffice to describe the effect.  Certainly no such effect could be
observed in a stereoscope (proof of the irrelevance of any analogy with
stereoscopes).  Yet the effect clearly exists, and I'll argue it is quite
similar conceptually to the "roundness" or depth effect in relation to screen
size.  It can also be easily explained with diagrams (as seen in a reference
that Bill made to a book).

Here's my new thought:  the depth effect varies with screen size only because
the 3d image is measurable in size and "interacts" with (i.e. is visible within
the context of) the real x-y-z space in which we reside.  Because a larger
screen will create a physically larger image, it will appear different to us
(because our IPD/interocular does not grow/scale with the image size).  I also
observed this when I experimented with a mirror stereoscope (expanding my IPD) -
just as I illustrated with my drawings.  When I viewed a screen image in the
mirror scope, the effect was to compress the depth effect on the screen... sort
of.   What I observed is more accurately described as: the screen image had less
depth effect than the surrounding real space, because that had a very
exaggerated depth effect due to my increased IPD.  So the perception of the real
space surrounding the 3d image seems necessary to observe the relationship
between screen size and depth effect.  If you were to remove all other visual
cues, viewing the screen in a perfectly darkened room, then possibly the effect
would vanish.

As noted before, but this bears repeating, all this depends on how you align the
images on screen.  As my diagrams show, not just the screen size, but also
horizontal alignment will determine the absolute, measurable size of the 3d
image, with real dimensions in x, y, and z, not just angular dimensions.  Thanks
for further clarifying the impact of horizontal alignment, John Hart.

Therefore, please understand that with a fixed, unadjusted horizontal alignment
(e.g. both screen images "mounted" identically, such as "to the window"), and
viewed at a given, matched HFOV, the screen size will affect the 3d image size,
and that this will alter the perceived depth effect.

Good night!

Boris

Browsing through google, I found out that I wasn't the only one with this
problem, yet solution was never found. I also contacted 3dtv with no help
whatsoever...

Good stuff Boris but it is much simpler to observe by using a measuring tape.
You can measure the perceived depth of a sphere vs its radius on the two screen
sizes and have numbers that show they are different in Z relative to the radius.

phil

The source of misunderstanding is both conceptual and linguistic. Isn't it always this way in stereoscopy?

  Here we have been discussing the depth effect / distortion caused by viewing a given image on a different size screen, WITH THE VIEWING FOV HELD CONSTANT!

Another example. In response (or rebuttal) to my point about how it might be ocular convergence informing our sense of depth in an image, Bill has pointed out that when viewed in a stereoscope, he can change the horizontal alignment of the stereo view (by moving the film chips - NOT the stereo window), and no difference in depth effect will be perceived, thus proving that ocular convergence has no effect on depth perception. Alright, that is true, and I've seen the same effect myself! (and it gives me a new thought, see below).

But we're not talking about stereoscope viewing in this thread. We're talking about screen viewing, which is fundamentally different. In screen viewing, a "real" (virtual) image is formed in the space in which you reside. This is not an effect you can observe in the stereoscope. In screen viewing, the 3d image has a physical, geometric, measurable relationship to the real space in which you reside with the screen - no matter if the "screen" is a lenticular print, an anaglyph print, a barrier autostereoscopic display, a 3dTV or a cinema screen.

This is where John R's description of distortions caused by off-axis viewing is in fact very relevant. No numbers that Bill could muster in any of his analyses would ever suffice to describe the effect.

Certainly no such effect could be observed in a stereoscope (proof of the irrelevance of any analogy with stereoscopes).

Yet the effect clearly exists, and I'll argue it is quite similar conceptually to the "roundness" or depth effect in relation to screen size. It can also be easily explained with diagrams (as seen in a reference that Bill made to a book).

Here's my new thought: the depth effect varies with screen size only because the 3d image is measurable in size and "interacts" with (i.e. is visible within the context of) the real x-y-z space in which we reside. Because a larger screen will create a physically larger image, it will appear different to us (because our IPD/interocular does not grow/scale with the image size).

I also observed this when I experimented with a mirror stereoscope (expanding my IPD) - just as I illustrated with my drawings. When I viewed a screen image in the mirror scope, the effect was to compress the depth effect on the screen... sort of.

As noted before, but this bears repeating, all this depends on how you align the images on screen. As my diagrams show, not just the screen size, but also horizontal alignment will determine the absolute, measurable size of the 3d image, with real dimensions in x, y, and z, not just angular dimensions. Thanks for further clarifying the impact of horizontal alignment, John Hart.

Therefore, please understand that with a fixed, unadjusted horizontal alignment (e.g. both screen images "mounted" identically, such as "to the window"), and viewed at a given, matched HFOV, the screen size will affect the 3d image size, and that this will alter the perceived depth effect.

Blah Blah Blah...

Here is the point. Judging your 3D image on a small screen will mislead you if
it is ultimately projected on a big screen (and no it will not be 'remounted').

small screens will show flatter depth compared to big screens.

I don't care why :-)

It is so

phil

   Posted by: "Bill G" bglick@... bglick12
   Date: Mon May 21, 2012 12:09 am ((PDT))

This is not an effect you can observe in the
stereoscope. In screen viewing, the 3d image has a
physical, geometric, measurable relationship to the real
space in which you reside with the screen - no matter if
the "screen" is a lenticular print, an anaglyph print, a
barrier autostereoscopic display, a 3dTV or a cinema
screen.

                                             You lost me here....
film viewer, PC screen, 3dtv, cinema screen, all same ... 

and the depth "appears"  in our     space.....  

I cannot but maintain some optimism that maybe we might yet be able to obtain understanding from you,

Bill, you say that I "lost you," when I described the difference between stereoscope viewing and screen viewing.  You claim that in a stereoscope, you perceive the 3d image in the "real space" all around you, just as you would viewing a "screened" 3d image.  This is the key point in all our misunderstandings these past five days!

If we can manage to have you reassess your position on this, we might be able to finally crack this nut.  You are basically saying that while viewing a slide in a stereoscope (maybe even while shifting the film chips or lenses back and forth, to vary the convergence), you can hold out a ruler into the image and measure its actual physical dimensions, reading with your eyes the numbers right off that ruler.  (a ruler to measure distances, not angles).  This is contrary to everyday observable reality.

From: jrchristopher2007@...
To: SMcQ
Re: 600 miles from 3D screen
Date: Monday, May 21, 2012

SMcQ:

Still catching up on my emails, five days & 300 emails to go.

So, SMcQ, you wrote:

-- "I'm 600 miles from the screen I'm designing for..." --

Personally, I prefer viewing 3D from the rear of the theatre, stretching out
that negative parallax arena to the maximum effect. But 600-miles to the stereo
screen? Seems a little far, even for me. Is there a Pinocchio effect? Does the
stereo flatten to infinity at about 300 miles? Does the curvature of the earth
block the horizon line somewhere over St. Louis? If the sun rises in the east,
and sets in the Depth, do AMC Theatres have to show 3D in Chinese (to please
their new owners)?

If the equation crosses the equator, do I have to direct-order the 3D from
Amazon.com?

Of course, if this is a Drive-In screen, the math perfectly matches the
equation-- er, equator? Until the fog rolls in, across Cincinatti.

Maybe, that's why today's front-page photos show crowds watching the Eclipse
through 3D glasses?

2 Tee-Hee 4 3-d? -- jrc

Yes, the screen is awfully hard to see from that distance. All the mountain
ranges get in the way, not to mention the curvature of the earth!

SMcQ

--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "John R. Christopher" <jrchristopher2007@...>
wrote:
>
> From: jrchristopher2007@...
> To: SMcQ
> Re: 600 miles from 3D screen
> Date: Monday, May 21, 2012
>
> SMcQ:
>
> Still catching up on my emails, five days & 300 emails to go.
>
> So, SMcQ, you wrote:
>
> -- "I'm 600 miles from the screen I'm designing for..." --
>
> Personally, I prefer viewing 3D from the rear of the theatre, stretching out
that negative parallax arena to the maximum effect. But 600-miles to the stereo
screen? Seems a little far, even for me. Is there a Pinocchio effect? Does the
stereo flatten to infinity at about 300 miles? Does the curvature of the earth
block the horizon line somewhere over St. Louis? If the sun rises in the east,
and sets in the Depth, do AMC Theatres have to show 3D in Chinese (to please
their new owners)?
>
> If the equation crosses the equator, do I have to direct-order the 3D from
Amazon.com?
>
> Of course, if this is a Drive-In screen, the math perfectly matches the
equation-- er, equator? Until the fog rolls in, across Cincinatti.
>
> Maybe, that's why today's front-page photos show crowds watching the Eclipse
through 3D glasses?
>
> 2 Tee-Hee 4 3-d? -- jrc
>

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_And_Downloads/IPTV/J6V7X8J8

"Don't blame the technology. Prices are still too high, and the amount of
content is still too low."

The price of 3d content is what is high right now. You can go to Walmart.com and
look for the Vizio 32" 1080p 3dtv, and it shows as low as $398. The 3d discs are
overpriced, ranging around $30 - $40, giving you usually the 3d movie, the 2d
movie, a standard dvd, and a way of getting the digital copy. Chances are folks
buying the 3d bluray are only going to watch the 3d hd version.
    Content is a major problem. After emailing the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS,
FOX), the main response I received is there are no plans for 3d content at this
time. Directv has 3 channels and a pay per view channel that have 3d
programming, and Optimum cable in my local area has one channel that they
dedicated to 3d sports (when "available").
    That leaves only a couple options - 3d blurays if you have a 3d blu player,
services like Qriocity and Vudu that offer 3d streaming movies (Avengers will
more than likely play on Vudu), and consumer made content, usually uploaded to
YouTube and viewable through streaming apps on tvs and disc players, and online,
of course.
    Will "Avengers" save 3d? Will more people buy the required equipment? It will
help, but it probably won't convince 98% to buy that new 3dtv. Most will be
content with the 2d version. If James Cameron decides to finally release
"Avatar" to the general public, that would provide a bigger draw.
    If the media is really interested in having 3d take over, they will need to
convert their most loved tv stations in a stereoscopic format. National
Geographic and Discovery channels will benefit the most from this. Hollywood
would need to convert older movies to 3d, to play on AMC 3D and TCM 3D. And
speaking of Ted Turner - WTBS 3D, CNN 3D. And we will know the end of it when
the Weather Channel goes stereoscopic. We have never seen weather like that
before :) After such programming steamrolls, the major networks will probably
take advantage of the ATSC 2.0 and start developing 3d content.

From: jrchristopher2007@...
To: Andre & 3DTV Yahoo Group
Re: Field-sequential 3d to BluRay
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Andre & fellow 3D Yahoos:

This is the same thing I asked, months ago, because there are many
field-sequential 3D videos that will NEVER be released commercially on BluRay.
Things that we shot ourselves, whose masters are standard definition and will
never pass the criteria of current distribution.

With all the scuttlebutt when LG first delivered passive TVs, no one could tell
me if the monitor would be backward-compatible. We are all seduced by the hi-def
dazzle, so it is difficult for old 480i video to hold our attention.

It took someone not in this discussion group, playing with his 65-inch 480hz LG
passive 3D TV after buying HUGO during the Fry's sale, to actually have
feedback.

The LG does play in field-sequential mode. It does not keep in phase with the 3D
image. However, my friend was using the monitor's internal system and trying to
playback in passive 3D. With the radical difference in line resolution, the
up-res picture will throw the alternate-lines of two eyes out of synch. Plus,
most external players that up-res to progressive output(BluRay or newer 1080p
DVD players) do not maintain a reliably consistent video signal through the
standard-def composite (RCA) output jack.

Awaiting further testing. However, I suggested my friend tries the LG in
field-sequential mode while inputting the video from an older DVD player (1080i
or lower) and viewing through the older field-sequential active glasses and the
2D alternating-fields setting on the LG.

Another alternative method to test is playing the f/s DVD through a computer and
Stereoscopic Player, which can convert the image into a side-by-side or
over/under 3D-readable signal for the LG monitor. Still suspect trouble using
LG's internal 3D processor, but might work with older f/s active-glasses.
Important step would be to up-res the two fields AFTER they have been separated,
so there is no confusion of lines mixed from wrong fields.

I know Eric Kurland has experimented with converting field-sequential DVDs into
a BluRay-compatible format. Have seen a few upgraded conversions from another
friend. Don't know Eric's formula, but I think this is how my friend does it:

First, run the field-sequential through a stereoscopic software edit program.
Separate the two eyes. Of course, the computer knows nothing about content, only
knows pixels. So, you choose to save the upper (or lower) set of alternate lines
and dispose of the rest. You now have a flat image of one eye and half SD
resolution. Then, use the software to up-res the remaining lines to full hi-def
resolution. Save the final product as a single, 2D eye in its own separate file.

Next, repeat the same steps, selecting the opposite line information, up-res to
full hi-def and save as a separate 2D file.

Finally, load the two separate 2D files into your stereoscopic software. Treat
them the same as you would when editting two separate files from a dual-camera
stereo rig.

You will have to go through the same synching issues as any traditional
dual-camera system, with some additional corrections for artifacts which may
occur in the separation & up-res process. You will also have an opportunity to
make any corrections in the original's stereo alignments (much of which is
automatic through modern software, I guess) and might have to tweak the synch
for any artifacts from the separation & up-res.

In the end, you will output the two files into a side-by-side product which can
be transferred onto BluRay. Remember, your end product does not have to be the
commercial BluRay 3D formula.

Your player & monitor will recognize any standardized 3D format. Side-by-side is
actually the most common, used in Broadcast, Internet, etc. There are a couple
hundred BluRay 3Ds, but thousands of YouTube videos and 60-plus TV channels with
round-the-clock programming in the side-by-side standard.

And the delivery does not have to be BluRay. Most likely, hard-drives or
flash-drives and the side-by-side will be the long-term standards for 3D. You
could even get away with a DVD-Rom, except the high-def computer files may be
too large.

Do not expect the end result to suddenly be full HD. The picture will never look
sharper than the original source material. And most consumer BluRay edit/burn
software does not offer the myriad options (multiple menus, chapters, bonus
materials, multiple videos) that are common on DVD programs. However, you will
be compatible with BluRay and your HD monitor. The higher quality and faster
refresh-rate of the HD monitor will give more dynamics and texture to the space
between objects.

Personally, I won't be happy until I can pick & choose multiple items and their
playback order on the BluRay, and have menu options for the viewer. I want an
old-fashioned program with shorts & previews & maybe making-of documentaries
before the feature, all with a single plug-in & play-all button. I'm an
archivist -- I want AVATAR and the 3D documentary Easter Egg from the 2D
Director's Cut on the same disc, with a play-all button that allows me to enjoy
the program without interruptions.

And yes, this is a slow & tedious process, like any video edit starting from
scratch. Do not recommend it for anything you will eventually buy at your local
grocery store. However, if it is something you shot, and you no longer have
separate files, or you just want to have total control & hassle-free playback
(no commercials!), a lot of sweat & tears at the beginning can result in endless
headache-free nights of pleasure.

Again, I cannot give you tech specs. I have the info second-hand, and can only
share what I have been told and review the results.

I have seen my favorite 3D musical in this conversion. It provides an
ever-pleasing rest-stop that re-energizes the quest and keeps the spirit alive
until the hi-def dream is finally a reality.

If you want HOUSE OF WAX or DIAL M FOR MURDER, don't bother, because the
official Blurays will be available within a year. But if it is your movie, some
long-lost relatives, a one-time event that lingers for a lifetime, this might be
your solution.

2 Talky 4 3-D -- JRC

Maybe recent 3DBD pricing is only a test marketing, but the recent deals at
Costco on top Disney 3D titles at $22 and the various top titles at Fry's for
$17, seem to suggest that the market is opening up on price point.

SMcQ

--- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "brewerre" <moye_eugene@...> wrote:
>
>
> "Don't blame the technology. Prices are still too high, and the amount of
content is still too low."
>
> The price of 3d content is what is high right now. You can go to Walmart.com
and look for the Vizio 32" 1080p 3dtv, and it shows as low as $398. The 3d discs
are overpriced, ranging around $30 - $40, giving you usually the 3d movie, the
2d movie, a standard dvd, and a way of getting the digital copy. Chances are
folks buying the 3d bluray are only going to watch the 3d hd version.
>    Content is a major problem. After emailing the major networks (ABC, NBC,
CBS, FOX), the main response I received is there are no plans for 3d content at
this time. Directv has 3 channels and a pay per view channel that have 3d
programming, and Optimum cable in my local area has one channel that they
dedicated to 3d sports (when "available").
>    That leaves only a couple options - 3d blurays if you have a 3d blu player,
services like Qriocity and Vudu that offer 3d streaming movies (Avengers will
more than likely play on Vudu), and consumer made content, usually uploaded to
YouTube and viewable through streaming apps on tvs and disc players, and online,
of course.
>    Will "Avengers" save 3d? Will more people buy the required equipment? It
will help, but it probably won't convince 98% to buy that new 3dtv. Most will be
content with the 2d version. If James Cameron decides to finally release
"Avatar" to the general public, that would provide a bigger draw.
>    If the media is really interested in having 3d take over, they will need to
convert their most loved tv stations in a stereoscopic format. National
Geographic and Discovery channels will benefit the most from this. Hollywood
would need to convert older movies to 3d, to play on AMC 3D and TCM 3D. And
speaking of Ted Turner - WTBS 3D, CNN 3D. And we will know the end of it when
the Weather Channel goes stereoscopic. We have never seen weather like that
before :) After such programming steamrolls, the major networks will probably
take advantage of the ATSC 2.0 and start developing 3d content.
>

Hi,

Here is our first essay with a TriDelta
we made, using a Nikon D7000.

http://youtu.be/W0ggxmNq6s4

No sync problems :)

And very funny... at least to me !

Helio A G Souza
Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul
Brazil

Congratulations Helio!

I assume the d7000 uses a "rolling shutter", and given
the way the tri-delta arranges L and R, the shutter
moves "left to right" on one side and "right to left"
on the other.

I've used a Tri-delta on DSLRs for a while, but never
bothered to use it for video. Maybe what you "don't know"
"wont hurt" ?

Best Wishes,
John Billingham



-----Original Message-----
>From: Helio Augusto <hgodoy@...>
>Sent: May 22, 2012 8:23 PM
>To: 3dtv@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [3dtv] stereo only one camera
>
>Hi,
>
>Here is our first essay with a TriDelta
>we made, using a Nikon D7000.
>
>http://youtu.be/W0ggxmNq6s4
>
>No sync problems :)
>
>And very funny... at least to me !
>
>Helio A G Souza
>Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul
>Brazil
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>
>

Those following the Blackmagic camera developments will recall that part of the
deal will be a full licence for their color grading etc app Resolve -- which is
normally $999

This full version of Resolve has appealing looking 3d features ...
>>DaVinci Resolve has a powerful 3D toolset for advanced jobs. DaVinci Resolve
allows real time concurrent grading and display of stereoscopic 3D timelines, as
well as side by side, line by line, checkerboard and anaglyph comparison between
eyes. DaVinci Resolve also includes the most advanced automatic 3D alignment
tools to remove slight errors between cameras on 3D rigs at the push of a
button. DaVinci Resolve features a massive 3D toolset that makes stereoscopic 3D
grading easy!>>

Has anyone any experience with these 3d features?

There is a free version of Resolve which has most of the full features except a
limit at 1080p output and no 3d features.
The free version though does have support for Gopro video
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/277/15067
and it does a very nice job with Gopro video. When the Technicolor Cinestyle
comes out Resolve will be a great tool I think for Gopro video grading.

I am more tempted now by the Blackmagic Camera if Resolve with 3d comes with it.

PeterM

On Tuesday 22 May 2012 at 11:42 PM, John R. Christopher wrote:

 

From: jrchristopher2007@...
To: Andre & 3DTV Yahoo Group
Re: Field-sequential 3d to BluRay
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Andre & fellow 3D Yahoos:

This is the same thing I asked, months ago, because there are many field-sequential 3D videos that will NEVER be released commercially on BluRay. Things that we shot ourselves, whose masters are standard definition and will never pass the criteria of current distribution.

With all the scuttlebutt when LG first delivered passive TVs, no one could tell me if the monitor would be backward-compatible. We are all seduced by the hi-def dazzle, so it is difficult for old 480i video to hold our attention.

It took someone not in this discussion group, playing with his 65-inch 480hz LG passive 3D TV after buying HUGO during the Fry's sale, to actually have feedback.

The LG does play in field-sequential mode. It does not keep in phase with the 3D image. However, my friend was using the monitor's internal system and trying to playback in passive 3D. With the radical difference in line resolution, the up-res picture will throw the alternate-lines of two eyes out of synch. Plus, most external players that up-res to progressive output(BluRay or newer 1080p DVD players) do not maintain a reliably consistent video signal through the standard-def composite (RCA) output jack.

Awaiting further testing. However, I suggested my friend tries the LG in field-sequential mode while inputting the video from an older DVD player (1080i or lower) and viewing through the older field-sequential active glasses and the 2D alternating-fields setting on the LG.

Another alternative method to test is playing the f/s DVD through a computer and Stereoscopic Player, which can convert the image into a side-by-side or over/under 3D-readable signal for the LG monitor. Still suspect trouble using LG's internal 3D processor, but might work with older f/s active-glasses. Important step would be to up-res the two fields AFTER they have been separated, so there is no confusion of lines mixed from wrong fields.

I know Eric Kurland has experimented with converting field-sequential DVDs into a BluRay-compatible format. Have seen a few upgraded conversions from another friend. Don't know Eric's formula, but I think this is how my friend does it:

First, run the field-sequential through a stereoscopic software edit program. Separate the two eyes. Of course, the computer knows nothing about content, only knows pixels. So, you choose to save the upper (or lower) set of alternate lines and dispose of the rest. You now have a flat image of one eye and half SD resolution. Then, use the software to up-res the remaining lines to full hi-def resolution. Save the final product as a single, 2D eye in its own separate file.

Next, repeat the same steps, selecting the opposite line information, up-res to full hi-def and save as a separate 2D file.

Finally, load the two separate 2D files into your stereoscopic software. Treat them the same as you would when editting two separate files from a dual-camera stereo rig.

You will have to go through the same synching issues as any traditional dual-camera system, with some additional corrections for artifacts which may occur in the separation & up-res process. You will also have an opportunity to make any corrections in the original's stereo alignments (much of which is automatic through modern software, I guess) and might have to tweak the synch for any artifacts from the separation & up-res.

In the end, you will output the two files into a side-by-side product which can be transferred onto BluRay. Remember, your end product does not have to be the commercial BluRay 3D formula.

Your player & monitor will recognize any standardized 3D format. Side-by-side is actually the most common, used in Broadcast, Internet, etc. There are a couple hundred BluRay 3Ds, but thousands of YouTube videos and 60-plus TV channels with round-the-clock programming in the side-by-side standard.

And the delivery does not have to be BluRay. Most likely, hard-drives or flash-drives and the side-by-side will be the long-term standards for 3D. You could even get away with a DVD-Rom, except the high-def computer files may be too large.

Do not expect the end result to suddenly be full HD. The picture will never look sharper than the original source material. And most consumer BluRay edit/burn software does not offer the myriad options (multiple menus, chapters, bonus materials, multiple videos) that are common on DVD programs. However, you will be compatible with BluRay and your HD monitor. The higher quality and faster refresh-rate of the HD monitor will give more dynamics and texture to the space between objects.

Personally, I won't be happy until I can pick & choose multiple items and their playback order on the BluRay, and have menu options for the viewer. I want an old-fashioned program with shorts & previews & maybe making-of documentaries before the feature, all with a single plug-in & play-all button. I'm an archivist -- I want AVATAR and the 3D documentary Easter Egg from the 2D Director's Cut on the same disc, with a play-all button that allows me to enjoy the program without interruptions.

And yes, this is a slow & tedious process, like any video edit starting from scratch. Do not recommend it for anything you will eventually buy at your local grocery store. However, if it is something you shot, and you no longer have separate files, or you just want to have total control & hassle-free playback (no commercials!), a lot of sweat & tears at the beginning can result in endless headache-free nights of pleasure.

Again, I cannot give you tech specs. I have the info second-hand, and can only share what I have been told and review the results.

I have seen my favorite 3D musical in this conversion. It provides an ever-pleasing rest-stop that re-energizes the quest and keeps the spirit alive until the hi-def dream is finally a reality.

If you want HOUSE OF WAX or DIAL M FOR MURDER, don't bother, because the official Blurays will be available within a year. But if it is your movie, some long-lost relatives, a one-time event that lingers for a lifetime, this might be your solution.

2 Talky 4 3-D -- JRC

If you want HOUSE OF WAX or DIAL M FOR MURDER, don't bother, because the official Blurays will be available within a year. But if it is your movie, some long-lost relatives, a one-time event that lingers for a lifetime, this might be your solution.

I have several field-sequential VHS tapes put out by 3D TV Corporation in the
early 90s which I would love to be able to watch on my new 3D TV. I've already
tried them on it and it doesn't work- most if not all HDTV's de-interlace the
picture so the left and right eye views don't stay in their own fields.

Some of these movies are pretty obscure and may never be issued on any format
again- one is a very bad softcore porn flick from 1972 called "The
Chambermades".

On Wednesday 23 May 2012 at 10:37 AM, Jesse wrote:

 

I have several field-sequential VHS tapes put out by 3D TV Corporation in the early 90s which I would love to be able to watch on my new 3D TV. I've already tried them on it and it doesn't work- most if not all HDTV's de-interlace the picture so the left and right eye views don't stay in their own fields.

Some of these movies are pretty obscure and may never be issued on any format again- one is a very bad softcore porn flick from 1972 called "The Chambermades".

> Does anybody know if any of the following is in some release pipeline:
>
> jaws 3D

All the Jaws movies in Blu Ray are set to hit the shelves in August. It is
believed Jaws 3-D has the 3d Blu ray specs, but there is no solid inventory set
up for preorder, so no one is too sure.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jaws-3-D-Blu-ray/35624/

From: jrchristopher2007@...
To: Andre & 3DTV Yahoo Group
Re: Classic 3D BluRays
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Andre & fellow 3D Yahoos:

Getting more emails, daily, than I can read. Still 285 emails behind, so I am
sorry if you already have responses that supplied this info.

JAWS 3D was part of a five-picture package deal Sensio made with Universal to
release their classics in home video. Sensio takes FOREVER to follow-up, so the
format saw a major sea-change before anything happened.

They did release JAWS 3D in the Sensio format, which should still be playable on
newer monitors (certainly, the pre-BluRay DLP monitors and -- with an assist
from Stereoscopic Player -- most of the LED & Plasmas, as well as old CRT's).
Sensio & Universal were tying themselves to the HD-DVD format, which fizzled
before Sensio could complete the package. As far as I know, the only other title
to make it out was TAZA, SON OF COCHISE. Other unreleased titles would have been
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and REVENGE OF THE
CREATURE.

Sensio kept promising to join the BluRay bandwagon, but this parade is too fast
for the slow-and-steady R&D of the 20th Century.

Anticipate Universal making a giant leap when Warner Home Video finally bows to
pressure from Martin Scorsese and starts releasing their 3D Classics, later this
year. HOUSE OF WAX and DIAL M FOR MURDER were already announced. Scorsese
recognized both of them as "influences" on HUGO, along with KISS ME KATE. So, we
might expect KATE will be part of the first or second wave of titles.

The major factor will be 3D broadcast networks, not home video. 3D classics can
be a major cash-cow for content-strapped 3D channels, and a self-renewing source
of income. Home video is more of a cul-de-sac. Majors will probably still hold
back until they can get a solid broadcast window before going BluRay.

We need to do more research, since there are way more titles on th market than
you realize, especially when factoring in the releases outside our respective
home regions.

FRIDAY THE 13th made the leap to BluRay in the first wave, last year. Some
confusion, because the anaglyph version has been on the market forever.

The source materials for turkeys like COMIN' AT YA! and TREASURE OF THE GOLDEN
CROWNS have always been problematic (even in original release, the
mis-alignments were horrible). Now that much better 3D movies are being made,
they fill no immediate need except for us purists (Yes, I have them in
field-sequential, but not repeat-viewing material).

Rights issues and time-damaged source materials plague most of the desired
titles. The late Dan Symmes had re-timed and corrected stereo errors on INFERNO,
about six months before his death. Rights-holders have yet to sign off on
releasing it. Ditto on HONDO, which was screened five years ago and is probably
waiting for the 3D market to peak, for maximum first-sales.

MGM-UA is scouring their vaults for 3D content. They had 12 features, including
GOG, but lost the rights to STARCHASER Legend Of Orin (which reverted to the
original owner, so anticipate an independent 3D release).

MGM's current library is largely inherited from AIP/Orion. The more titles they
can package together, the better the deal. MGM-UA is reluctantly considering
inherited exploitation titles, like PRISON GIRLS. Too bad the true MGM titles
are now owned by Warners.

Loggerheads will loosen a little, if the EPIX Channel is successful with their
original 3D productions, later this year. Roger Corman's ATTACK OF THE 50-FOOT
CHEERLEADER debuts on the channel in August, in addition to an irreverent 3D
biography of Monty Python's Graham Chapman.

Comcast launches their own 3D network, sometime next year. HBO and CBS are
experimenting with 3D content. Everyone expects the benchmark will be hit when
the first terrestrial 3D channel broadcasts.

For those young-enough and young-at-heart, a little patience and all our dreams
will be rewarded.

2 Greedy 4 3-D -- JRC