Slashdot Mirror
Porn Industry Tiptoes Into 3D Video
itwbennett writes "The 3D porn experience is coming (eventually) to a home theater near you. Most adult filmmakers are moving slowly toward 3D video because of higher production cost, the small number of 3D TVs in the home, and, of course, the glasses. Rob Smith, director of operations at Hustler Video Group says he hopes that market penetration of 3D TVs in the home is high enough that 'by the fourth quarter of this year it will be at the point where we can justify doing a 3D product.' The average adult movie costs around $25,000 to $40,000 to make, and 3D movies cost about 30% more, says Ali Joone, founder of Digital Playground. But Joone thinks the biggest hurdle for 3D isn't so much the cost as the glasses: people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film, says Joone."
30FPS with shutter glasses was too much flicker for some people.
Pretty much all of the upcoming 3D TVs are in one of two categories:
1) Alternating polarization of each line, so half resolution in 3D mode
2) 120 Hz TVs with shutters. Right now this is the approach NVidia is backing. Problem is that apparently a lot of the 120 Hz TVs out there only do internal "mocomp" processing of 60 Hz inputs, and don't allow for native 120 Hz input.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
If you had RTFA you would know that in addition to the equipment cost, filming takes longer because of the set up/tear down of twice as many cameras, and the post-processing does actually take more work to make sure both tracks are synced up properly. Also until people get used to filming in 3d there will need to be extra redos to get the actors' limbs in the picture instead of being cut off at the side of the 3d picture, which TFA says and I can imagine would be disconcerting.
I want 3D boobies!
We've had those for a while now. They're called "women".
The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?
Also these are LOW (think sub 100k) budget. So an additional 10k in hw/setup/time/etc on a 40k movie is 30% more.
They do low low low budget as they only press maybe 5k-10k total units. With a 'high budget of 50k movie they only need to sell 3500 or so to ROI. Everything else is gravy. If they get a 'hit' with one they can just press more. It is an oversaturated market. As any dope with a video camera can make one.
+1 Insightful.
Nobody seems to make 3D goggles for people who already wear wear glasses. Or does anyone know a source for them?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Yes and no. The old style 3D with a blue filter for one stereo channel and red filter for the other can be watched on standard TVs or projectors. The new digital TV uses vertically polarized light for one channel and horizontally polarized light for the other, meaning that yes, it requires 2 projection sources. There is also a scheme I saw used at IMAX that used active LCD glasses synced to the movie via infrared transmitters above the screen so that they alternately shuttered the left and right eye as the right and left image was displayed on the screen. The obvious disadvantage: big expensive battery powered glasses they had to collect from customers and sterilize after every movie. These could also be shown with old projectors, and possibly with old TVs if you could find a way to sync the glasses with the video. Interlaced video has 2 frames anyway, it should be relatively easy to just make one frame the left and the other frame the right channel.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
These need 8 or more images to work, although it is quite possible to interpolate them from the 2 images of a normal stereo movie. This is currently nowhere near real time and sometimes some hints are needed for it to be done right. However I could imagine this becoming a standard: either the interpolation data is stored in the movie as it is far smaller than the images, or processing gets fast enough and the alogorithms good enough that it can be calculated from 2 pictures in real time.
The reason 8 images are needed is that at any position you are seeing image n and n+1 mod N where N is the number of images. Therefore at most positions your left eye sees one image and your right an image from a pov slightly to the right. However at some locations you see image N-1 and 0 and the eyes are reversed. Minimizing the size of these "wrong" positions requires N to be as high as possible.
You seriously need to get yourself a better source for your porn.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun