Strange 3D effect

[Jesper Sichlau]

Hi there,

I came up with an idea for a 3D-effect, which I have no way to try in the nearest future, therefore I would like people's opinion on it.

What kind of effect would it give, if you during a 3D-take, move the camera further apart? Would the viewer seem like tared apart or what? Has it been done in any movie, and would you benefit from it. The only use for it, that I can come up with would be in some kind of psychological film, teasing with your mind, in a more visuel way than Inland Empire for example. Any thoughts?

[Sarah C.]

IO and convergence change during a shot? I think that is done a lot actually.. ~s

[Keith Putnam]

Hi there,

I came up with an idea for a 3D-effect, which I have no way to try in the nearest future, therefore I would like people's opinion on it.

What kind of effect would it give, if you during a 3D-take, move the camera further apart? Would the viewer seem like tared apart or what? Has it been done in any movie, and would you benefit from it. The only use for it, that I can come up with would be in some kind of psychological film, teasing with your mind, in a more visuel way than Inland Empire for example. Any thoughts?

Changing the interocular distance, which is what you're referring to here, changes how "separated" the planes in the 3D image appear to be. An IO pull, which is probably slightly less common than a convergence pull, would either separate or compress the illusory 3D planes depending on whether you were increasing or decreasing the lateral distance between the lenses. It would be similar-ish to the effect you get with the famous "track-in zoom out" or TIZO dolly push/pull plus zoom in/out, though, obviously, not the same. It's an analogy, anyway.

[Matt W.]

I suggested this to a friend this weekend and he actually managed to try it using nvidia's anaglyph 3d drivers. Apparently, it breaks the illusion of depth as the eyes aren't designed to adjust to the effect, which is a shame since it sounds like it could be cool.

If it were possible to do this without breaking the illusion, it would give the impression of the audience growing in size physically. (This also means interocular distance can be modified to sell miniature work as full-scale, thankfully.)

[Markus Stone]

If a subject of the shot moves closer to the lens, it is is common to change the 3D setting of the camera during a shot, and is variously referred to as 'pulling convergence' or 'pulling interocular/interaxial'. Often both are pulled at the same time.

Funny thing is, it doesn't really have the effect of making you feel like you are physically getting larger and smaller (as you'd expect) as the theoretical distance between the 'eyes' changes.

You can, of course get miniaturaisiation, but the fact is that most people watching a stereo 3D shot with an interaxial pull won't even notice anything at all, even if they are looking for it (unless of course, they 'cheat' by taking their glasses off!).

Cheers