Impossible without introducing the third dimension of time.
The eyes are still sending back 2 dimensional images along the optic nerve. All you're complaining about is lack of control.
Go wild - imagine a stereo camera on a robot with a 6-degree-of-freedom mount - controlled by your movements and gaze-tracking. With 3D endoscopes, and bomb-disposal robots, were already part of the way to that technology, apart from the fact that the focus for those hasn't been on high-quality imaging. But capture and display technology is moving forwards in leaps and bounds, as is everything. There's no reason why all the ingredients from the different fields couldn't be combined, and you couldn't enjoy the comfort of someone's bust from the beauty of your home cinema. Is that 3D enough? If it's not, then the things that you asked for above weren't actually the things that make something 3D.
There are several different 3D systems - it might be that some work better for you than others. I'll admit to knowing nothing about how 3D is done on computers/TVs (not having a TV, and using my computer for little more than a few dozen xterms) - does your monitor actually do 96 fps, as in order to do 48 fps using alternate shutters, you need 96 frames to be generated. It could be that there were time-aliasing problems with your monitor which was sending the incorrect sequence of images to each eye, perhaps something like LRRLRLLR, which was causing a seemingly imperceptible pulsing and jerking. Not conscious perception, that is, but your brain may have been perturbed by what it saw.
Give the best technology (48fps) another shot, but next time, shove a couple of shots of Jack Daniels down you shortly beforehand. People got queasy the first time escalators were introduced, and a shot of brandy was the cure for that. I'm not joking - I've yet to go to a 3D movie when stone-cold sober. (Apart from at the Smithsonian IMAX a couple of decades back!)
If you're going to pretend that you can only "add" a room, but not "add [something] to" a room, then you're ill-equipt to partake in a discussion about language.
Go pick up a book on information theory. Go read a book on how the brain processes the optical signals it receives.
At no point in time are your eyes sending down the optic nerves anything apart from 2 time-smeared 2 dimensional images. You're calling that "real 3d". I'm calling your bluff. You can't just get to coin phrases in order to fabricate an argument.
Saccade? *irrelevant* - that's movement. Movement is a change in *time*. You've just introduced a third dimension of your own. From that of course we can reconstruct in our mind three-dimensional spacial aspects of the scene we're viewing. Ditto changes in focus. Ditto anything where you throw in the third dimension of time.
It's all still reconstruction from 2 spacial dimensions of optically-captured data over time, and some outragiously-well-evolved grey-matter processing.
Sure, in these stereoscopic 3d movies, we don't get to chose our head position or orientation, ditto eyes, our focal plane, or our depth of field, and things like that can blow any immersion illusion in an instant. But most of those aren't even problems in the stereoscopic 3D domain, those apply in monocular vision on a good old fashioned 2D movie too.
> Which film won all accolades last year? > > Hints: it is mostly silent, black and white and most definitively 2D.
Yeah, thank god it wasn't like all the handle-turning hollywood mega-dollar dime-a-dozen dross that plagues the screens nowadays. It was nice to see someone brave enough to do something different, almost unique in the modern day and age.
Thank god that making a silent black-and-white movie in 2011 isn't a gimmick.
> the prices they are asking for one stupid 3D movie here in this country. 28 a 35 euro's
The "a" implies your mother tongue is an italic one - France?
Here in Estonia, as long as my g/f & I see more than 5 movies a year (and thus qualify for a free 20% discount), and we go on off-peak times, then a 3D movie (including 48 fps hobbits) will cost me 4 euros. Yes - four. OK, your wage is probably three times higher I'm sure, but you're being fleeced by your cinema companies, and you should vote with your feet/wallets.
> I hated 3D because the active glasses made me sick and gave me headaches
> Perhaps if the theaters didn't try to rape our wallets for the 3D glasses (every time), then - to add insult to injury - ask us to "please recycle them".
?!?!!?
This sounds like an anti-GSM rant I often heard - "GSM is crap as you have to pay to *receive* SMSs". Again - my response was nothing but "?!?!?!?".
What kind of shitty backward country do you live in where businesses are allowed to get away with biting the hands that feed them, constantly, and are brainwashing you into believing that it's the fault of the technology? Gather all your savings and important belongings together and move somewhere more civilised where concepts like consumer rights and freedom of choice are held with higher regard.
Both my g/f and I have astigmatism. She also has nystagmus. I also have pretty severe short-sightedness in one eye. For us, The Hobbit's 3D (at 48 fps) worked really well. No dizziness, no headaches, no nausea, and no vertigo except when looking down into a valley from above, which is what we'd hope to feel in that situation.
So it worked perfectly for us, and we clearly have nothing like normal vision. Certainly astigmatism is nothing to do with your problems. And what's this "[your] eyes can't focus well" bollocks? They don't need to focus - the screen is the same distance away the whole freaking time! Which is the same for 2D and 3D movies. It really looks like you're just pulling random excuses out of your arse.
Most of that is a problem with the humans, not the technology. Don't you remember shitty 2D movies in the past where you thought "this is the scene they'll turn into a game-let in a playstation tie-in"? Many of those were just gimmicks, totally ignoring all logic and coherence, and making every effort for that particular scene to stand out in your memory as much as possible. It's the same sickness.
I trust you have given these films suitably low scores on IMDB, or wherever?
> scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version
Why are you blaming better technology for what is in essence just bad film-making?
I hated the sounds of early CDs, I was a vinyl lover, and it was only later when talking to a hardware engineer who'd worked in the digital audio field that it was revealed to me why I hated the sound - because they were deliberately engineered to sound as unlike vinyl as possible. And in part, that meant deliberately screwing up the frequency response. So it wasn't the better technology that was to blame, it was humans making crappy products.
You probably don't remember some of the tragically awful repeated pans that infested music production not long after stereo became popular - left - right - left - right - left - right - jeez, I get the message, I've got two ears and you've got a crack-monkey for an engineer, enough already.
The technology is best when you *don't* notice it.
Exactly the same with 3D cinematography. Just wait for the gimmick to wear off, then you won't have to put up with inane gimmickry.
Here's one: heighten, increase; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness <enhanced the room with crown molding>
> high-brow programmers who want to triple-plus-abstract and design-pattern everything.
In my experience, which can be measured in decades, the worst programmers I've ever worked with have been the ones who design patterned everything. They were the guys who didn't even know what Big-Oh was, and decided that O(n^3) was sensible where n would be measured in the thousands, and where amortised O(n) or lower algorithms existed. I think the problem was that they didn't even know what an "algorithm" was.
That is a pointless distinction to make. Off is off, it's a property of the power subsystem. When the device is off it doesn't know or care whether there's a hibernate resume file on the hard disk, or *even if there is a hard disk*. "Hibernated" is not an intrinsic property of the computer.
"Hibernated" is not even an intrinsic property of the disk, as it's perfectly possible to boot off a different medium into a completely different OS, or insert that disk into another machine as a second drive (and then sniff for keys, and stuff).
"Hibernated" is a property only of the subsequent boots.
That conclusion (the thing after 'suggest') is clearly bogus.
If the number of vehicle kilometers remains the same, and the number of people per vehicle increases, then the amount of congestion per person, or per person-mile must be decreased.
It's like they're looking at bigger ovens and saying "they're no hotter than the old small ovens, they can't be more efficient". They're measuring the wrong thing. Person-miles-per-hour good; vehicle-miles dumb.
But you could feel the Kaliningrad/Poland/Russia 2004 quake in southern Finland (it shook my desk in Lohja, for example, and no, that wasn't the mine collapsing). Very few places are entirely free from the effects of quakes. Further north might be better though.
Wouldn't the Finns prefer an F1 race than a particle accelerator?
Scientists have long known that consumption of (sufficient quantities of) Koskenkorva can make Finns become legless.
Although strangely, when in this state, we tend to call them "our 4-legged friends" as they tumble off the ferry. So maybe they were gaining two legs after all.
> Secondly, motion blur?! Humans have these things called eyes that use light to perceive the environment around them and automatically perform their own "motion blur". Why would anyone want to purposely lose detail in a frame by making it blurry?
Because there is a difference between the continuous and the discrete.
If a hand waving in front of your face is at position x at time 0 and at position y at time 1, then it will also be approximately at position (x+y)/2 at time 1/2 - and your eye *will* receive light from it in that, and all other intermediate positions, and perceive that blur as motion.
If a movie shows a sword slashing in front of the camera at position x at time 0 and at position y at time 1, then there will be *no point in time* where it will also be showing the sword at position (x+y)/2, because it simply wasn't captured. Unless you actually *add* deliberate motion blur to compensate. You're not seeing and perceiving something that you would in reality.
Without very high frame rates (such that there are smaller holes in the motion) or motion blur these so-called "hyper-real" experiences aren't "more real than reality", they are simply "unreal", or "wrong". After seeing the trailer, I can see many places where Jackson has made *horrific* fuckups, but it's *not* in the choice of frame rate (it's the depth of field most frequently). I hope Avatar II comes out in 60Hz, there's no reason to think that better-than-crappy-24Hz should be considered good-enough. Trumbull demonstrated 40 years ago that 48Hz isn't enough.
> Oh, and the motion blur is still there, it's just that there's only half as much of it.
Way way way way way way way less than half of the motion blur of film stock. Digital at 24fps is as choppy as fuck (see the attack scenes in/28 Days After/, for example). 48fps of course makes it half as choppy, so that's a good thing. But I still expect the smooth motion blur of film stock to, well, be smoother. And therefore more close to what we see in real life - which is a constantly moving blur.
Slashdot Mirror
> move your head
Impossible without introducing the third dimension of time.
The eyes are still sending back 2 dimensional images along the optic nerve. All you're complaining about is lack of control.
Go wild - imagine a stereo camera on a robot with a 6-degree-of-freedom mount - controlled by your movements and gaze-tracking. With 3D endoscopes, and bomb-disposal robots, were already part of the way to that technology, apart from the fact that the focus for those hasn't been on high-quality imaging. But capture and display technology is moving forwards in leaps and bounds, as is everything. There's no reason why all the ingredients from the different fields couldn't be combined, and you couldn't enjoy the comfort of someone's bust from the beauty of your home cinema. Is that 3D enough? If it's not, then the things that you asked for above weren't actually the things that make something 3D.
There are several different 3D systems - it might be that some work better for you than others. I'll admit to knowing nothing about how 3D is done on computers/TVs (not having a TV, and using my computer for little more than a few dozen xterms) - does your monitor actually do 96 fps, as in order to do 48 fps using alternate shutters, you need 96 frames to be generated. It could be that there were time-aliasing problems with your monitor which was sending the incorrect sequence of images to each eye, perhaps something like LRRLRLLR, which was causing a seemingly imperceptible pulsing and jerking. Not conscious perception, that is, but your brain may have been perturbed by what it saw.
Give the best technology (48fps) another shot, but next time, shove a couple of shots of Jack Daniels down you shortly beforehand. People got queasy the first time escalators were introduced, and a shot of brandy was the cure for that. I'm not joking - I've yet to go to a 3D movie when stone-cold sober. (Apart from at the Smithsonian IMAX a couple of decades back!)
If you're going to pretend that you can only "add" a room, but not "add [something] to" a room, then you're ill-equipt to partake in a discussion about language.
Go pick up a book on information theory. Go read a book on how the brain processes the optical signals it receives.
At no point in time are your eyes sending down the optic nerves anything apart from 2 time-smeared 2 dimensional images. You're calling that "real 3d". I'm calling your bluff. You can't just get to coin phrases in order to fabricate an argument.
Saccade? *irrelevant* - that's movement. Movement is a change in *time*. You've just introduced a third dimension of your own. From that of course we can reconstruct in our mind three-dimensional spacial aspects of the scene we're viewing. Ditto changes in focus. Ditto anything where you throw in the third dimension of time.
It's all still reconstruction from 2 spacial dimensions of optically-captured data over time, and some outragiously-well-evolved grey-matter processing.
Sure, in these stereoscopic 3d movies, we don't get to chose our head position or orientation, ditto eyes, our focal plane, or our depth of field, and things like that can blow any immersion illusion in an instant. But most of those aren't even problems in the stereoscopic 3D domain, those apply in monocular vision on a good old fashioned 2D movie too.
> Which film won all accolades last year?
>
> Hints: it is mostly silent, black and white and most definitively 2D.
Yeah, thank god it wasn't like all the handle-turning hollywood mega-dollar dime-a-dozen dross that plagues the screens nowadays. It was nice to see someone brave enough to do something different, almost unique in the modern day and age.
Thank god that making a silent black-and-white movie in 2011 isn't a gimmick.
> the prices they are asking for one stupid 3D movie here in this country. 28 a 35 euro's
The "a" implies your mother tongue is an italic one - France?
Here in Estonia, as long as my g/f & I see more than 5 movies a year (and thus qualify for a free 20% discount), and we go on off-peak times, then a 3D movie (including 48 fps hobbits) will cost me 4 euros. Yes - four. OK, your wage is probably three times higher I'm sure, but you're being fleeced by your cinema companies, and you should vote with your feet/wallets.
> I hated 3D because the active glasses made me sick and gave me headaches
Demand twice as many frames per second.
> Perhaps if the theaters didn't try to rape our wallets for the 3D glasses (every time), then - to add insult to injury - ask us to "please recycle them".
?!?!!?
This sounds like an anti-GSM rant I often heard - "GSM is crap as you have to pay to *receive* SMSs". Again - my response was nothing but "?!?!?!?".
What kind of shitty backward country do you live in where businesses are allowed to get away with biting the hands that feed them, constantly, and are brainwashing you into believing that it's the fault of the technology? Gather all your savings and important belongings together and move somewhere more civilised where concepts like consumer rights and freedom of choice are held with higher regard.
Both my g/f and I have astigmatism. She also has nystagmus. I also have pretty severe short-sightedness in one eye. For us, The Hobbit's 3D (at 48 fps) worked really well. No dizziness, no headaches, no nausea, and no vertigo except when looking down into a valley from above, which is what we'd hope to feel in that situation.
So it worked perfectly for us, and we clearly have nothing like normal vision. Certainly astigmatism is nothing to do with your problems. And what's this "[your] eyes can't focus well" bollocks? They don't need to focus - the screen is the same distance away the whole freaking time! Which is the same for 2D and 3D movies. It really looks like you're just pulling random excuses out of your arse.
Most of that is a problem with the humans, not the technology. Don't you remember shitty 2D movies in the past where you thought "this is the scene they'll turn into a game-let in a playstation tie-in"? Many of those were just gimmicks, totally ignoring all logic and coherence, and making every effort for that particular scene to stand out in your memory as much as possible. It's the same sickness.
I trust you have given these films suitably low scores on IMDB, or wherever?
> scenes that are so obviously a gimmick for the 3D version
Why are you blaming better technology for what is in essence just bad film-making?
I hated the sounds of early CDs, I was a vinyl lover, and it was only later when talking to a hardware engineer who'd worked in the digital audio field that it was revealed to me why I hated the sound - because they were deliberately engineered to sound as unlike vinyl as possible. And in part, that meant deliberately screwing up the frequency response. So it wasn't the better technology that was to blame, it was humans making crappy products.
You probably don't remember some of the tragically awful repeated pans that infested music production not long after stereo became popular - left - right - left - right - left - right - jeez, I get the message, I've got two ears and you've got a crack-monkey for an engineer, enough already.
The technology is best when you *don't* notice it.
Exactly the same with 3D cinematography. Just wait for the gimmick to wear off, then you won't have to put up with inane gimmickry.
> stereoscopic garbage they are passing off as 3D
You mean your "eyes"?
What definition are you using for "enhance"?
Here's one:
heighten, increase; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness <enhanced the room with crown molding>
That all says "add" to me.
Yes, and what my brain received to process were 2 2D projections onto my retinae.
We can't have real 3D, whatever that means, until we give up using our eyes as input devices.
That's one dimension, but there is a second:
A thieving person can ruin a handful of people's days.
A thieving corporation can ruin millions of people's days.
> high-brow programmers who want to triple-plus-abstract and design-pattern everything.
In my experience, which can be measured in decades, the worst programmers I've ever worked with have been the ones who design patterned everything. They were the guys who didn't even know what Big-Oh was, and decided that O(n^3) was sensible where n would be measured in the thousands, and where amortised O(n) or lower algorithms existed. I think the problem was that they didn't even know what an "algorithm" was.
> or ask the user for the security code on resume. Which is valid but obnoxious.
Or vital.
I wouldn't want it any other way. Nor would my clients.
That is a pointless distinction to make. Off is off, it's a property of the power subsystem. When the device is off it doesn't know or care whether there's a hibernate resume file on the hard disk, or *even if there is a hard disk*. "Hibernated" is not an intrinsic property of the computer.
"Hibernated" is not even an intrinsic property of the disk, as it's perfectly possible to boot off a different medium into a completely different OS, or insert that disk into another machine as a second drive (and then sniff for keys, and stuff).
"Hibernated" is a property only of the subsequent boots.
Not just the accent dear boy; it's generally just more refined, what, what.
That conclusion (the thing after 'suggest') is clearly bogus.
If the number of vehicle kilometers remains the same, and the number of people per vehicle increases, then the amount of congestion per person, or per person-mile must be decreased.
It's like they're looking at bigger ovens and saying "they're no hotter than the old small ovens, they can't be more efficient". They're measuring the wrong thing. Person-miles-per-hour good; vehicle-miles dumb.
But you could feel the Kaliningrad/Poland/Russia 2004 quake in southern Finland (it shook my desk in Lohja, for example, and no, that wasn't the mine collapsing). Very few places are entirely free from the effects of quakes. Further north might be better though.
Wouldn't the Finns prefer an F1 race than a particle accelerator?
Scientists have long known that consumption of (sufficient quantities of) Koskenkorva can make Finns become legless.
Although strangely, when in this state, we tend to call them "our 4-legged friends" as they tumble off the ferry. So maybe they were gaining two legs after all.
It's not pretty neat, as he hasn't figured out anything. He's just pulled a couple of vagualy relevant-looking backronymns out of his arse.
Anyone who's ever played 'acrophobia' could do that too.
And nobody who's played 'acrophobia' would ever claim to have cracked the code.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Remember, too, that the Wikipedia page on him is almost certainly going to have more contributions to it made by fans of his work.
From the perspective I have, having some expertise in OCR, I think that Kurzweil made his greatest breakthroughs in self-publicity.
> Secondly, motion blur?! Humans have these things called eyes that use light to perceive the environment around them and automatically perform their own "motion blur". Why would anyone want to purposely lose detail in a frame by making it blurry?
Because there is a difference between the continuous and the discrete.
If a hand waving in front of your face is at position x at time 0 and at position y at time 1, then it will also be approximately at position (x+y)/2 at time 1/2 - and your eye *will* receive light from it in that, and all other intermediate positions, and perceive that blur as motion.
If a movie shows a sword slashing in front of the camera at position x at time 0 and at position y at time 1, then there will be *no point in time* where it will also be showing the sword at position (x+y)/2, because it simply wasn't captured. Unless you actually *add* deliberate motion blur to compensate. You're not seeing and perceiving something that you would in reality.
Without very high frame rates (such that there are smaller holes in the motion) or motion blur these so-called "hyper-real" experiences aren't "more real than reality", they are simply "unreal", or "wrong". After seeing the trailer, I can see many places where Jackson has made *horrific* fuckups, but it's *not* in the choice of frame rate (it's the depth of field most frequently). I hope Avatar II comes out in 60Hz, there's no reason to think that better-than-crappy-24Hz should be considered good-enough. Trumbull demonstrated 40 years ago that 48Hz isn't enough.
> Oh, and the motion blur is still there, it's just that there's only half as much of it.
/28 Days After/, for example). 48fps of course makes it half as choppy, so that's a good thing. But I still expect the smooth motion blur of film stock to, well, be smoother. And therefore more close to what we see in real life - which is a constantly moving blur.
Way way way way way way way less than half of the motion blur of film stock. Digital at 24fps is as choppy as fuck (see the attack scenes in