Hrvoje Simic
11-18-2008, 04:35 AM
I would like to share the experience from the 3D presentation held at IBC this year.
It was a pleasure to see the advancements in this technology and an honor in being be a part of 3D history, because this was first live transatlantic 3D broadcast ever. It was an interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dreamworks CEO. The 3D presentation was an exceptional experience. A lot of advancements have been made since previous 3D attempts.
My impressions:
After stepping in the 3D, what used to be a canvas becomes a space. All the rules which applied to canvas don’t apply. Brain doesn’t perceive the story as it did, and tries to “be there”. Mimicing 3D is mimicing reality. You try to pull the mind into the space. At the same time factors which are not optimal are trying to pull the viewer’s mind back. That is what is tiring the mind and causes confusion.
1080p is not enough
This became apparent when a 3D sequence from “Kung fu panda” was shown. The exceptional clarity and resoluton, superior to the live 1080p 3D streaming footage immediatley prooved that one needs higher resolution for “immersive” effect. 1080p may be okay for “canvas”. For space it is not.
When viewing 2D imagery in this resolution it is much easier to “let go” and watch the story. For 3D 1080p takes much more time.
I have “let go” in a much sharper “Kung fu panda” sequence in an instant.
24p is not enough
It is time to let go. Heritage of rolling film creates a perceptional conflict in 3D space. As soon as the camera or actors start moving, 24p strobing is pulling the viewer back. It is not natural to see the motion strobing in 3D space. It is ockward and confusing. Also, it is one other factor which is causing strain to the viewer.
Editing
When cutting, not allowing the mind the time to perceive the new scene and space will result in less immersive effect. Dynamics from 2D storytelling will have to be adjusted.
Long lens & DOF
Not only is it unnatural to experience z-depth in this FOV, too shallow DOF combined with depth turn the image perception into “strange”. The whole perception gets less immersive than with wider lens, reducing the feeling of reality.
When everything is totally blurred in the background there is no reference for the mind of the depth of the space. Shallow DOF helps in creating the depth effect in 2D. In 3D has a tandency to create quite the opposite and should be treated differently.
I’d use this option, but not in the same way and not as often.
Dark scenes
The perception of depth depends on the reference points. In the dark it's much harder to perceive those reference points. The shot has to last longer and allow the time for the mind to experience depth. Dark scenes + fast(er) cutting = not a chance.
It is my opinion that proper balance of the desired immersive effect and available narrative techniques will be the key role in 3D storytelling.
Convergence, focus and more....
I’m think that this area is going to need a lot more development and more advanced tools. I experienced a feeling of eye strain, but only on some shots. This happened in U2 3D also, only on some shots. I'm thinking that this was related to the convergence/focus/lens precise adjustments and control.
3D projection tech impressions
The day after the presentation at IBC “Journey to the center of the earth” was shown in 3D. In Dolby’s 3D. The same technology in which I saw U2 3D few weeks later. The immersive effect is about 30-40% lower than with Real3D technology (if I remember correctly the name). Plus the colors are overlapping, plus you have more reflections of your face in the glasses, so I wouldn’t go with Dolby in this case.
You can read the short summary of the interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg here (http://www.ibc.org/cgi-bin/ibc_dailynews_cms.cgi?story_no=25573&issue=6).
Note the company mentioned to manufacture 3D glasses... ;-)
It was a pleasure to see the advancements in this technology and an honor in being be a part of 3D history, because this was first live transatlantic 3D broadcast ever. It was an interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dreamworks CEO. The 3D presentation was an exceptional experience. A lot of advancements have been made since previous 3D attempts.
My impressions:
After stepping in the 3D, what used to be a canvas becomes a space. All the rules which applied to canvas don’t apply. Brain doesn’t perceive the story as it did, and tries to “be there”. Mimicing 3D is mimicing reality. You try to pull the mind into the space. At the same time factors which are not optimal are trying to pull the viewer’s mind back. That is what is tiring the mind and causes confusion.
1080p is not enough
This became apparent when a 3D sequence from “Kung fu panda” was shown. The exceptional clarity and resoluton, superior to the live 1080p 3D streaming footage immediatley prooved that one needs higher resolution for “immersive” effect. 1080p may be okay for “canvas”. For space it is not.
When viewing 2D imagery in this resolution it is much easier to “let go” and watch the story. For 3D 1080p takes much more time.
I have “let go” in a much sharper “Kung fu panda” sequence in an instant.
24p is not enough
It is time to let go. Heritage of rolling film creates a perceptional conflict in 3D space. As soon as the camera or actors start moving, 24p strobing is pulling the viewer back. It is not natural to see the motion strobing in 3D space. It is ockward and confusing. Also, it is one other factor which is causing strain to the viewer.
Editing
When cutting, not allowing the mind the time to perceive the new scene and space will result in less immersive effect. Dynamics from 2D storytelling will have to be adjusted.
Long lens & DOF
Not only is it unnatural to experience z-depth in this FOV, too shallow DOF combined with depth turn the image perception into “strange”. The whole perception gets less immersive than with wider lens, reducing the feeling of reality.
When everything is totally blurred in the background there is no reference for the mind of the depth of the space. Shallow DOF helps in creating the depth effect in 2D. In 3D has a tandency to create quite the opposite and should be treated differently.
I’d use this option, but not in the same way and not as often.
Dark scenes
The perception of depth depends on the reference points. In the dark it's much harder to perceive those reference points. The shot has to last longer and allow the time for the mind to experience depth. Dark scenes + fast(er) cutting = not a chance.
It is my opinion that proper balance of the desired immersive effect and available narrative techniques will be the key role in 3D storytelling.
Convergence, focus and more....
I’m think that this area is going to need a lot more development and more advanced tools. I experienced a feeling of eye strain, but only on some shots. This happened in U2 3D also, only on some shots. I'm thinking that this was related to the convergence/focus/lens precise adjustments and control.
3D projection tech impressions
The day after the presentation at IBC “Journey to the center of the earth” was shown in 3D. In Dolby’s 3D. The same technology in which I saw U2 3D few weeks later. The immersive effect is about 30-40% lower than with Real3D technology (if I remember correctly the name). Plus the colors are overlapping, plus you have more reflections of your face in the glasses, so I wouldn’t go with Dolby in this case.
You can read the short summary of the interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg here (http://www.ibc.org/cgi-bin/ibc_dailynews_cms.cgi?story_no=25573&issue=6).
Note the company mentioned to manufacture 3D glasses... ;-)