3D curious

[DSE 5]

Some of the folks here play with 3D, many are curious, and others couldn't care less.

I'd like to understand more about what motivates folks here to want to do 3D, and what prevents others from caring.

I'm at the IBC in Amsterdam, and everywhere I turn, it's 3D.

Curious as to whether this particular community thinks it's a fad or the next evolution in media.

[dragon2 2]

Curious, because I'm a gadget freak

Not sure if it's just a fad, I hope not, I like the few 3D movies I've seen and would love a 3D laptop. I think it's going to take a good while though before 3D will make it into many households, there isn't a good standard yet and even if there was, I for one do not have the cash to be buying a new bluray player, new big tv and stuff for a good while.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[PhreeZone 20]

Biggest issue to getting started it I've seen some REALLY bad 3d and I don't want to be in that group and I've heard so many things about if settings are not right you can give people vision head aches and stuff like that. Its just a lack of understanding and ability at this point

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[shveddy 0]

A significantly more exciting use for two cameras:

http://vimeo.com/14821961

3d's a gimmick, generally.

I haven't seen the human flight 3d thing yet, and it could change my mind. Acting notwithstanding.

[quade 4]

Quote

Curious as to whether this particular community thinks it's a fad or the next evolution in media.

For home, right now, it's a fad. Much like HDTV existed for 20 years or so before it really took off, the technology just isn't there for the home yet. It's not standardized in any way that makes sense and the "best" home 3D, the one from Panasonic, still requires some hefty glasses and right now have ridiculously short viewing times before battery replacement.

Eventually the technology will settle down and for futurists it's vital to stay tuned in on developments, but for the average consumer . . . it's simply not worth the effort at this point.

10-20 years from now, probably everything will be in 3D using a technology that hasn't been thought of yet. Today, I couldn't recommend it to anyone for their homes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DSE 5]

I can't either.
Active Shutter shades...250.00
Room has to be "right" for the IR to work.
Passive lenses...cheap but half resolution/less effective.
Autostereoscopic has an exceptionally narrow field of view, so you get pulled into the picture, but if you lay your head on your SO's shoulder...you're back out.

do you take your shades off when you get up to grab a beer? Cuz you're probably gonna trip on the coffee table if you don't. Do you buy 6 pair of shades for the fam? What about when your buddies come over to watch the game in 3D?
BluPrint plus encoder plus Zplane-80K$...shelf authoring ain't happening for a long while.

But at IBC...the manufacturers have got everyone here convinced that 3D is the next gold rush.
I feel like a fish swimming upstream.

[bigorangemd 0]

I think until it is possible without glasses, if ever, it will be a fad. Who wants to put on glasses every time you watch something. Was wondering what is needed to do 3D video though, some college kids at DZ may be willing to pay extra for the gimmick, but then again, sometimes it's hard enough just to get them to pay for the video in the first place. Would be extra cool to play with trying though!

[boyfalldown 0]

I work with 3d for a living. I don't really like to watch it, but enjoy working in the 3d environment, both acquisition and display. As a camera flyer already it was only natural for me to give 3d a go in freefall. With fixed lenses and no way to adjust convergence(push or pull the depth) it was really boring, and didn't add anything to the viewing experience. If anything the 3d took away from the skydiving.

Editing 3d content doesn't cost any more than 2d. In a pinch I've even used adobe premier elements to render a 1080i 3d side by side for playback on a 3d lcd.

Jim

[mchamp 1]

Personally I believe its a marketing gimmick trying to get more attention from the general public to induce more sales of movies and such.

I have heard from quite a few friends that they are indeed quite interested within the technology, but then again they are not really "tech geeks" as I am

The only 3D thing that I am interested in is the 3D flight movie as it seems as if they are trying to do it "right" and of course its a skydiving/BASE jumping video of course I'm going to be all hyped up about it!!

Here is a link to a recent study regarding 3D applies only within the U.S I believe. Not quite too sure if Europe feels the same way

http://gizmodo.com/5635518/study-consumers-less-interested-in-3d-tv-after-experiencing-it-firsthand

For info regarding lift ticket prices all around the world check out
http://www.jumpticketprices.com/dropzones.asp

[johnmatrix 21]

Quote

A significantly more exciting use for two cameras:

http://vimeo.com/14821961

That's incredible!

[DSE 5]

I don't know that I'd agree it's a marketing gimmick.
Fad? Perhaps.
Keep in mind that it does cost a LOT more to acquire 3D (assuming it's done properly).
The only aspect of the process that's the similar is editing, and even editing requires additional thought in how long shots are held, how much of the effect to pass depending on the distance from the subject, etc. Beam splitters are not easy/cheap to work with and maintenance of the gear is more costly.

yet, at the end of the day the public likely won't pay much more for the end product unless 3D significantly enhances their experience. There are only so many dollars in a family entertainment budget.

We'll just have to see what the porn market does. They drove VHS and the internet....maybe it'll drive 3D, too (the industry is already in the 3D space).

[johnmatrix 21]

I think this recent evolution of 3D is just another part of the battle movie makers are fighting to keep audiences going to cinemas rather than watching their movies at home.
Most changes to the medium have occurred in this fashion since TV emerged - first being widescreen formats (now TVs are made in widescreen), then surround sound (now there's surround sound for homes)...

The key issue I think is backwards compatibility. If DVD hadn't emerged as a consumer technology I reckon everybody would still be just as happy watching VHS. Hardly anyone would have gone to Blu ray if the BR player didn't play DVDs, and people buying new TVs are going to end up getting 3D ones just cos they're there - but only as long as it'll work with all their old crap. Then there'll be a platform for more content.

I can only hope nobody revives 'Smell O Vision'.

[DSE 5]

Quote

I can only hope nobody revives 'Smell O Vision'.

http://digiscents.com/blog/

[johnmatrix 21]

Quote

Quote

I can only hope nobody revives 'Smell O Vision'.

http://digiscents.com/blog/

NOOOO!

At least that's one thing the porn market will probably steer clear of.

[FreeflyChile 0]

It instantly reminded me of Half-Life 2 for some reason.

As far as 3-d, I am most curious about it for gaming applications. The thing I have read about gaming in 3d that I don't like is the drop in frame rate due to the fact the machine has to basically render two different perspectives to create the effect - from early reviews of the PS3 gaming, it appears that it's still better to play in 2d due to the loss of frame rate in 3d.

I think Sony is working on a glasses-free 3d TV - I'd guess it's based on the same concept as the screens that will be used on the Nintendo 3DS - that has gotten very good early word of mouth. Of course, the trick is that for the effect to work sans glasses, the viewer has to be in a specific position relative to the screen. Not really an issue for the 3DS or cell phones that might use this tech - but it is an issue for a TV in a living room.

Also, from the sports samples I've seen at best-buy of 3d - it looks sort of like depth was initially on the Super Nintendo - it looks like flat images on different planes. I am waiting for the tech make it look like the images on-screen have actual volume.

[vdschoor 0]

I think we are at the beginning of the next evolution.. 3D today is cool, but I think we're only just starting off. I think we're going to end up being "in" the movies we're watching, with the picture pretty much surrounding us.

The tricky thing with skydiving, as boyfalldown indicated already is I think most of it doesn't lend itself very well for 3D. I've seen some 3D base video / proximity flying stuff, and that looked amazing. Because there is a reference (the ground) that is much closer, I think that is what is cool about the effect of 3D.

I haven't played with it for that reason.. I don't base jump, and I think the kind of stuff that I am filming doesn't lend itself all that well for 3D, but who am I...

I am going to test with it later this year though, I do have some ideas on what could work really well with 3D.. .more to follow later

[FreeflyChile 0]

I think they showed this thing off at a conference recently:

http://www.pspworld.com/sony-psp/accessories/sony-hologram-display-will-blow-your-mind-011890.php

[quade 4]

Quote

I think they showed this thing off at a conference recently:
http://www.pspworld.com/sony-psp/accessories/sony-hologram-display-will-blow-your-mind-011890.php

Many years ago, picture tube era maybe 15 or so years ago, there was a company that showed a similar device. It was huge. Inside was a rotating picture tube. Every couple of degrees or so, it would show a different image. As you walked around it, it appeared to look very much like the holographic projectors in Star Wars films.

My guess, is this is somewhat similar, but because of today's technology, they've been able to replace the picture tube with a rotating sheet of OLED material.

If rather than do the "normal" thing with a display panel and get the widest viewing angle they tried to get the smallest one, then you'd only see the image for angle you were looking at it. They could enhance the effect by wrapping the entire thing in a cylinder of polarizing material so that you really did ONLY see the specific image intended for your direction. In fact, you'd see two different images, on for each eye, if you got close enough.

So, in theory, yeah, I can totally see this technology working. Could be really interesting for certain things.

Never replace a 50 inch screen in my living room though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DSE 5]

What is your opinion, Paul?
Is 3D here to stay this time, or a passing fad once again?

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Never replace a 50 inch screen in my living room though.

Agreed - for one thing, what about the background?

Still, pretty cool tech.

[mccordia 74]

I think the current limits (and amount of tech needed to show the 3D content) and the BAD conversions (prince of persia, clash of the titans) and few GOOD (shot in 3D) movies available for the format will turn this into something thats fun, but will most likely never fully take over..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[DSE 5]

My personal and business self says bad 3D is here to stay.
My personal self believes that once auto-stereo has a width of view greater than 4-5 inches...it'll be here in a big way.
But that's years off, IMO

[nigelh 0]

I've been playing with 3D a little, but only onto YouTube, I've not yet seen my videos on a HD TV and curious as to if they have worked.

I like the whole 3D TV thing and hope it's here to stay,
I'm not against the wearing of glasses, I wear sunglasses practically all the time, so it's not a problem for me

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Sponored by NZ Aerosports, CYPRES 2, Tonfly & L&B

Team Dirty Sanchez #232