The Future of Cinema - 'Real' 3D

GunSlinger writes "The IGN movies site is running a story on an old movie concept seeing a resurgence. 3D movies are making a cinematic comeback via new, more sophisticated techniques. Yes, you still wear glasses. No you don't get a headache. Yes, the effect is fantastic. This story looks at the technology, past and future projects, and why just about every major studio is now planning in three dimensions. 'There is indeed a revolution in cinema taking place. It's quietly slipped under the radar of most technophiles, beginning its assault on the way we consume media clothed in thoroughly unassuming garb -- the Disney Digital 3-D film, Meet the Robinsons ... no, we don't blame you for being skeptical. Most people in their mid-20s or later think of 3-D movies from the old school perspective -- goofy red and blue coloured glasses, strained eyes, possible migraines. And most importantly, a so-so 3-D effect. No more.'"

Comments

Just keep your head perfectly still..

[QuantumG]

cause as soon as you move it, the scene will fail to change and the illusion is lost.

Call me when you can give me 3d that I can walk around.. aka white light holograms.

Re:Just keep your head perfectly still..

[Jott42]

And this is the problem of all "stereo"-picture technologies today, with the exception of holograms: they only take one of many depth cues that the brain use into account. The movement of the head is important, and it is not only large movements, but also small, almost imperceptible rotations of the head that are important. (You can test this yourself: close one eye and note how what you see changes if you rotate your head as little as possible.) Another depth cue that is not covered is the focus of the eye: you will always have a contradiction in you head (which may give you a headace) as your eye has to be focused on the screen, but the depth information from the difference in the viewed images on the right and left eye tells you otherwise. As long as these other cues are not alse given, you will have the "cut out pictures stacked behind each other" persception of 3D in the cinema.

Not really

[Zouden]

3D cinema will never be accepted while you need to wear those cheap paper glasses. It will always be a gimmick. It doesn't matter if a major studio releases a children's school-holidays blockbuster in 3D - in fact that just makes it more gimmicky.
Wake me up when a 3D film wins an Oscar for Best Picture.

Re:Not really

[koreaman]

You have to run before you can walk. "Talkies" used to be seen as a gimmick too.

Grasping at straws

[cheetah]

Or at least that is how all of this talk about 3D sounds like to me... The industry feels like it needs something to bring people back into the movie house. Lets see, good movies at lower prices or 3D with the same crap movies and high prices. Guess which one they would like you to chose.

No "strained eyes, possible migraines?" No way.

[Aqua OS X]

Problem with this tech is that it is STILL stereo graphic. It's not volumetric, and therefore, the old eye strain problems will still exist.

OK, these guys may have developed a better way to deliver and display a stereo graphic image, but in the end, it's the same old crap we've seen for decades. You're still wearing stereo glasses. You put some glasses on, your right eye sees one image, your left eye sees another image, your brain converges the two images, but you can't focus on the depth of your choosing. Focus is predetermined by the film.

Human stereoscopic vision relies upon two mechanisms, convergence and accommodation. This cinema tech doesn't account for the latter. With this tech you still can't focus on depths of your choosing... as you would with a volumetric image or a real 3D object in the real world. These guys are trying to skirt around accommodation by limiting shots to particular ranges of depth. While this may help to minimize the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.

All in all... move along, nothing new to see here.

Re:3D sends the wrong visual cues.

[RegularFry]

That just means the film-makers need to learn to shoot for the new medium, rather than applying 2D techniques. In a way, it's back to play performances, where you also haven't got scale to play with (at least, not in the same way as you have with 2D).

Re:Parallax is NOT solved

[Mprx]

The scenes are generally *not* far away, because then you'll have very little stereoscopic depth information, and the 3d effect will be wasted. Almost all 3d movies feature objects flying very close to the viewers, because it gives a much more impressive 3d effect.

Re:3D sends the wrong visual cues.

[Dr. Manhattan]

That just means the film-makers need to learn to shoot for the new medium

This was a few years back, but when I saw one of the Imax 3D movies (some girl goes back in time and sees a bunch of dinosaurs) I realized that some new conventions would be needed for 3D films. When you're looking at a 2D movie, all the action is in one plane, and your eyes can easily focus on that distance.

But a cross-fade in 3D broke my brain. I couldn't figure out where to focus as some objects were getting transparent and fading away, and others were fading in. It was all a confused mess until the crossfade settled down.

(Say, what's the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe? :-> )

Re:Parallax is NOT solved

[timeOday]

But the inability to change perspective has nothing to do with 3d in particular. Current 2d movies don't let you roam around freely, either. It's the director who composes the shots.

Re:Clarification on IMax 3D.

[MobyDisk]

...polarized glasses, this is used for films that have not been filmed in 3D but they then process... I think the use of the headset -vs- polarized glasses is not based on how the movie was filmed. I've seen several IMAX movies at the Baltimore IMAX theater, some filmed in 3D and some not, but they all used the polarized glasses. I've never seen the head gear. This includes Deep Sea 3D, African Safari 3D, and Beauty and the Beast. The first two are native 3D, the last is not. I suspect that the headset -vs- glasses decision is made by each theater, rather than being dependent on how it was filmed.

Re:Parallax is NOT solved

[maxwell demon]

This "circular" polarization only solves problem with head tilting.

Indeed, it doesn't even do that. If you tilt your head, the images of the movie your eyes get will still be shifted horizontally in respect to the ground, instead of in respect to your head (after all, there are only those two images, and the camera doesn't know about your head movement). Since stereo seeing in your brain works through the horizontal displacement in respect of your eyes, tilting your head will make the 3D effect go away.

Now you might argue that the 3D effect won't go away if you don't tilt your head too much, but then, in that case you also don't get noticeable wrong-eye images with linearly polarized light.

Re:Parallax is NOT solved

[jez9999]

This CAN'T be done with traditional 3D cinema (because there are only 2 different image projected on the screen, they don't change as the head moves).

I think I've got a way to get round this. How about having actual objects that the audience watch, a real set, and real actors performing the storyline?

Re:Don't second guess if you haven't seen the movi

[TopShelf]

Agreed, Meet The Robinsons was really stunning. I caught myself admiring the animation and 3D quite a bit to the detriment of following the film (no big deal, really).

The only problem I had was that at the very beginning, after getting the instructions to put the glasses on, the first 3D stuff was a trailer for a Tim Burton animated Halloween movie - this scared the crap out of my kids (aged 5, 5, and 4, this being the first time they experienced 3D), with all sorts of nasties reaching out of the screen at them. They followed that with an old 1950's 3D cartoon with Donald Duck, which was harmless and would have made a much better introduction to 3D for the millions of little kids who will see it.