Our first 3D wedding video

Peter Chung · June 26th, 2010, 06:30 AM

I wouldn't expect people to try to view 3D videos in the cross-eye format. I was mainly asking so that I could watch Philip's video and see the effect that the guests at the wedding he shot saw.

As far as getting it to work, you are not an idiot. I tried to view cross eye many times over the years but gave up because my eyes could only view in parallel from all those Magic Eye books. It takes practice and determination, but mostly just practice.

As for the cinema, most 3D capture is more or less the same... two lenses a few inches apart pointing in the same direction parallel so as to "see" things like our brain sees the world. In the theater, they project one image polarized in one direction and the other image polarized in the opposite or perpendicular direction, depending on whether they are linearly polarizing or circularly polarizing. The lenses in the glasses are also polarized to block out one of the images on the screen so that each eye only sees one of the two images on the screen that corresponds to the image that eye would see through the camera's lens. This then tricks our brain into seeing depth.

Claire Buckley · September 3rd, 2010, 01:22 PM

Oh please... what are you guys on?

So 5.1 audio didn't put up the sales of TVs then, or increase the viewing figures all that much for the Super Bowl? So the next thing is? We not only do HD but we do 3D too!

Wake me up when they can bypass CRT, LCD and go straight to holograms (remember them?) without screwing up my already aged eyesight.

:)

Philip Howells · September 3rd, 2010, 03:26 PM

Chris, if you ever see a Viewmaster camera resist buying it no matter how cheap unless if comes with the cutter - it's a special block which makes it possible to punch out those fiddly images.

Real 3D in cinemas here in the UK uses polarised lenses which is why the glass are so cheap - 50c US I'm told. The trick is that whereas the polarised lenses of 20 years ago had vertical and horizontal polarisation, Real 3D uses circular polarisation, which means clockwise for one eye, anti-clockwise for the other. The advantage I imagine is that you don't lose the effect if you move your head from the strict V/H position.

Claire I urge you to read the newspapers or watch more TV. Fact: 3D is adding a huge plus to the bottom lines of the film industry. Fact: its application to TV is indisputably much further behind but the impetus is substantial with many of the big players spending a lot of money to keep their place. Fact: 3DTV is what everyone's talking and writing about at Berlin today.

But 3D is just one direction for development. If you're looking for a pointer towards the future in television I'd bet much more on Ultra High Definition before 3DTV

Remember the emotion which grabbed everyone the first time they saw IMAX? That sort of leap in definition will really grab the attention when it's on your TV screen.

There is, of course, no rule that says you have to follow progress but don't decry it out of hand.

Claire Buckley · September 3rd, 2010, 03:52 PM

"Remember the emotion which grabbed everyone the first time they saw IMAX?"

No?

Yes Philip and I can nip down to my local IMAX multiplex and view a selection of popular IMAX films which increased the funding to producers pitching for commissions, after telling commissioning editors that IMAX is the future.

I feel as though I'm still wearing the neck brace after watching the last IMAX film in Bradford in... let me think... was it 1990 or something.

Perhaps mentioning IMAX is not the best example - but I take your point.

:)

Philip Howells · September 3rd, 2010, 04:26 PM

Claire, with respect you're not reading what I wrote - I compared the impact of IMAX definition to what was then "standard" cinema definition and few I know did not share the emotion I described.

I did NOT say IMAX made anyone's fortune.

It is however, a matter of record that "Avatar", is the highest grossing film of all time - unless, I'm told, you take into account the depreciation of the dollar since 1939 when "Gone With The Wind" was released.

September 3rd, 2010, 01:22 PM	#17
Claire Buckley Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 176	Oh please... what are you guys on? So 5.1 audio didn't put up the sales of TVs then, or increase the viewing figures all that much for the Super Bowl? So the next thing is? We not only do HD but we do 3D too! Wake me up when they can bypass CRT, LCD and go straight to holograms (remember them?) without screwing up my already aged eyesight. :) __________________ Women don't hit harder, they just hit lower!

September 3rd, 2010, 03:52 PM	#19
Claire Buckley Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 176	"Remember the emotion which grabbed everyone the first time they saw IMAX?" No? Yes Philip and I can nip down to my local IMAX multiplex and view a selection of popular IMAX films which increased the funding to producers pitching for commissions, after telling commissioning editors that IMAX is the future. I feel as though I'm still wearing the neck brace after watching the last IMAX film in Bradford in... let me think... was it 1990 or something. Perhaps mentioning IMAX is not the best example - but I take your point. :) __________________ Women don't hit harder, they just hit lower!

June 26th, 2010, 06:30 AM	#16
Peter Chung Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 220	I wouldn't expect people to try to view 3D videos in the cross-eye format. I was mainly asking so that I could watch Philip's video and see the effect that the guests at the wedding he shot saw. As far as getting it to work, you are not an idiot. I tried to view cross eye many times over the years but gave up because my eyes could only view in parallel from all those Magic Eye books. It takes practice and determination, but mostly just practice. As for the cinema, most 3D capture is more or less the same... two lenses a few inches apart pointing in the same direction parallel so as to "see" things like our brain sees the world. In the theater, they project one image polarized in one direction and the other image polarized in the opposite or perpendicular direction, depending on whether they are linearly polarizing or circularly polarizing. The lenses in the glasses are also polarized to block out one of the images on the screen so that each eye only sees one of the two images on the screen that corresponds to the image that eye would see through the camera's lens. This then tricks our brain into seeing depth.

September 3rd, 2010, 03:26 PM	#18
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Chris, if you ever see a Viewmaster camera resist buying it no matter how cheap unless if comes with the cutter - it's a special block which makes it possible to punch out those fiddly images. Real 3D in cinemas here in the UK uses polarised lenses which is why the glass are so cheap - 50c US I'm told. The trick is that whereas the polarised lenses of 20 years ago had vertical and horizontal polarisation, Real 3D uses circular polarisation, which means clockwise for one eye, anti-clockwise for the other. The advantage I imagine is that you don't lose the effect if you move your head from the strict V/H position. Claire I urge you to read the newspapers or watch more TV. Fact: 3D is adding a huge plus to the bottom lines of the film industry. Fact: its application to TV is indisputably much further behind but the impetus is substantial with many of the big players spending a lot of money to keep their place. Fact: 3DTV is what everyone's talking and writing about at Berlin today. But 3D is just one direction for development. If you're looking for a pointer towards the future in television I'd bet much more on Ultra High Definition before 3DTV Remember the emotion which grabbed everyone the first time they saw IMAX? That sort of leap in definition will really grab the attention when it's on your TV screen. There is, of course, no rule that says you have to follow progress but don't decry it out of hand.

September 3rd, 2010, 04:26 PM	#20
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Claire, with respect you're not reading what I wrote - I compared the impact of IMAX definition to what was then "standard" cinema definition and few I know did not share the emotion I described. I did NOT say IMAX made anyone's fortune. It is however, a matter of record that "Avatar", is the highest grossing film of all time - unless, I'm told, you take into account the depreciation of the dollar since 1939 when "Gone With The Wind" was released.