What kind of 3D do you think is the future?

[Jeremy Hughes]

Okay, I'm asking you what you think is the kind of 3D you think is the future. That is, if you think the future is 3D.

True three dimensions where it's like a hologram, or the illusion of three dimensions with one picture for each eye? Like how it is now.

True 3D being a cube which you see from a slightly different angle with each eye. And 2D illusion being where you see a square with one eye and a slightly different looking square with the other.

Pixels as cubes for 3D and pixels as squares for 2D.

That's enough explanation of the difference right?

Now, I want to name the pros and cons of each kind of 3D. As well as some notes of things that don't quite fit either pros nor cons in my opinion.

True 3D

Pros:

1. No need for glasses.
2. Freedom to see from any angle you wish
3. Excellent for CG movies

Cons:

1. Scale may not be accurately observed. You may see a shot of the CN Tower and precieve it as being only three feet tall and being only 6 feet away from you. The illusion of distance and therefore great scale can not be properly achieved.
2. Capture would be nearly if not impossible in realtime with current technology.
3. Freedom to see from any angle you wish could result in watching a movie backwards. Seeing people from behind and such.

Notes:

1. There is no background, only a foreground.

Illusion of 3D

Pros:

1. Already proven.
2. A lot easier to capture than true 3D.
3. The illusion of distance can be achieved.

Cons:

2. Background could not only be blurry but would have a double-image.

Notes:
1. Focusing can be difficult since you are moving both eyes seperatley. Perhaps it could be controlled at the same time as focusing in the same way. And what ever you are focusing on is what both cameras are looking at.

I would go on talking about displays, but I'll save that for some other time.

Can anybody think up any better way to do it than what I have said? Problems with my theories?

[Nathan Buxton]

I have thought about true 3d for some time. why would there be no perception of scale? As someone who personally has limited depth perception in real life, i can tell you that there are definite ways of mimicing depth perception.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I want glasses free Illusion of 3D. There are some 2k monitors already which support this.

The huge problem of illusion of 3D that needs to be overcome is to have objects off the 3D Axis defocus. I don't like a lot of CG 3D Right now because they render with infinite depth of field and you get the aformentioned double images which don't feel natural since normally things off the plane of focus are blurred as well as doubled so it's a softer effect.

[Nathan Buxton]

To be honest I could care less about simulated 3d. I never cared for it and never will. I dont see in 3d anyway though so i'm biased. To me it just seems so cheesy. I don't get what "3d" actually adds to the film except a silly novelty?

[Joel Kaye]

To be honest I could care less about simulated 3d. I never cared for it and never will. I dont see in 3d anyway though so i'm biased. To me it just seems so cheesy. I don't get what "3d" actually adds to the film except a silly novelty?

Until something comes along to change my mind this is how I feel. When the Mona Lisa gets reissued in 3D and everyone actually agrees it's better is about when I'll be convinced. For now, I see it as a novelty that doesn't really add to my enjoyment.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think it would be huge for video games where you're striving for photorealism and immersion.

I think in its current form for movies its a novelty but that's because it doesn't work all that well.

[Nathan Buxton]

well.. to be honest... is the lack of sensation of physical depth the ONLY thing keeping you from thinking a video game is real? Smell-O-Vision from the 50's or 60's did more for the story than 3d ever will.

BUT.. that's not to say that a "true 3d" experience for both games and movies wouldnt be thirlling. They have cubical rooms with screens on all 6 faces that enable this sensation somewhat. to be able to be surrounded completely in every spatial sense with artifical light, close enough that you could feel you could touch it... now that might be worth something for cinematic value.

[conrad gaunt]

To be honest I could care less about simulated 3d. I never cared for it and never will. I dont see in 3d anyway though so i'm biased. To me it just seems so cheesy. I don't get what "3d" actually adds to the film except a silly novelty?

The computer game market is full of boring 3D games with incrementally better graphics, and not much originality. Im presently studying Computer Animation and Graphic Technology Applications Msc, and yes, I did write a raytracer last week. If your making a blockbuster though, a well marketed 3D computer game will make you profit (since computer game profits dwarf the film industry profits). I think the future may include interactive movie/game hybrids, not like we`ve seen so far. Think machinima (game engine used to create a realtime animation), and then make the graphics totally photorealistic, thus allowing characters to take different story paths. These movies will be made using many cinematography/storytelling techniques , but using virtual cameras, actors, possibly synthesised voices. Viewers may be able to shout at the viewing screen/interact. Images will look like film. Many youth today regard games and film as almost the same thing. Didn`t I read somewhere that Peter Jackson was teaming up with microsoft to do some film/hybrid thing for a while?



I want glasses free Illusion of 3D. There are some 2k monitors already which support this.

The huge problem of illusion of 3D that needs to be overcome is to have objects off the 3D Axis defocus. I don't like a lot of CG 3D Right now because they render with infinite depth of field and you get the aformentioned double images which don't feel natural since normally things off the plane of focus are blurred as well as doubled so it's a softer effect.

Im a CAGTA Msc student (everything graphics and 3d).
Depth of Field effects, motion blur etc and any other lighting phenomena can be created realistically using all high end 3D packages (for the last fifteen years or so). Lightwave/ 3D studio/ Softimage/ Electric Image/ POVray (free) etc . The effects your describing have not been rendered using proper DOF simulation (which is pretty accurate compared to reality)
Of course DOF is mainly about simulating camera footage, even though humans don`t see like a camera. 3D artists make their animations look like video/film by interlacing cgi sequences,altering fps, degrading etc, which makes it psychologically more realistic, because its what we`re used to seeing, on TV/film. If you think the DOF looks wrong, its probably an old effect, or a low budget TV effect, with none. There may occationally be technical reasons why DOF is left out, maybe to do with how CGI sequences are blended with other shots.
I was speaking with the guys who created the battle scenes in Narnia last year (and Tokyo Drift, ocean effects in Happy Feet and many others) and they said they spend a great deal of time getting colors correctly graded, but that often the shots they create get messed up in post production by film editors. He did give a lecture earlier in the day with projected examples of such shots vs final feature shots.
The other thing that I heard a lot from VFX people was "I get more money creating effects for thirty second adverts than I do for creating effects for an entire feature film", often accompanied with "so now I make adverts". Adverts are short, so I`m not surpised when I see stunning graphics, generally better than that in movies"

[conrad gaunt]

.....

[Nathan Buxton]

Thats not the 3d we were talkin about... CGI is one thing... stereographic images are another.

[Priyesh P.]

[QUOTE=im.thatoneguy;140454]I think it would be huge for video games where you're striving for photorealism and immersion.
QUOTE]

I fear the by-effects of this developments in gaming.

[Jeremy Hughes]

I have thought about true 3d for some time. why would there be no perception of scale? As someone who personally has limited depth perception in real life, i can tell you that there are definite ways of mimicing depth perception.

How can this be done?

[Nathan Buxton]

"true 3d" or mimicking depth perception? "true 3d" would be a 3 dimensional grid of pixels that when lit would become solid but when unlit are completely transparent. It is hypothetical. "Mimicking" depth perception can be done by providing reference. A CN tower in the foreground, put someone standing beside it with their shadow casting onto the building. You would be surprised at how much info you can get from shadows.

[Jeremy Hughes]

That's not what I meant. I meant if you have a hologram of the CN tower, six feet tall, it's going to look six feet tall because it will be like a sculpture of the CN tower that's six feet tall. It'll look much closer and therefor much smaller.

[Nathan Buxton]

what if you also render the whole city scape? I don't see how this scale is an issue unless you are only representing the tower.

[Jeremy Hughes]

You see it in 3D. And if you're far away from it, you're going to think it's large. If you're close to it you're going to see it small.

If you see a sculpture of the skyline of Toronto, you're going to be able to accuratley enough, judge the distance from your eyes to the sculpture. And therefore judge the scale and see the CN Tower as 6' tall.

But you say you don't see in 3D anyway?

[Nathan Buxton]

oh my.... see I have no idea about that.. I only use one eye as I have had surgeries in my left and While I can see pretty decently out of it, they don't align correctly to allow me to see stereoscopicly... so for me... it would be fine because i would have no way of judging the distance.... in terms of depth perception. I guess most people, though, would see that it is a certain distance.

and by "I dont see in 3d" i mean I dont have the effect of two different eyes combined. I can see perspective and such.. :P

[Jeremy Hughes]

I'm glad you understand now. And I hope there is a good, reliable and safe procedure for the alignment of your eyes someday.

[conrad gaunt]

That would explain a few comments I read! sorry ...
Stereographic imaging looks pretty good nowadays on IMAX, but also very artificial at times. Straight 70mm generally looks better. I have some nice software for constructing stereographic images somewhere. When the nanotechnology arrives we`ll probably be able to generate stereographic film using complex image synthesis and a single camera.