4 ms·

I really wish there was a way to do 3D that allowed your eyes and brain to naturally do what they do in the real world, though perhaps we're a long way from tha

by JunkDNA 17y ago

I really wish there was a way to do 3D that allowed your eyes and brain to naturally do what they do in the real world, though perhaps we're a long way from that? Anyone familiar with or doing any research on better mechanisms for 3D? I have yet to experience any sort of 3D entertainment that isn't (at least initially) disorienting. The need to wear glasses constantly ruins the experience. But even beyond that, the unnatural way the camera "forces" you to focus on things in the foreground also feels wrong to me and breaks the illusion. If the main character is front and center, but I want to stare at the wall right behind him, it shouldn't be blurry. But it often is blurry because of the camera's depth of field. You sort of feel like an unseen hand is forcing you to look at certain things and not others.

iujhygfbh 17y ago
In the real world - you don't really see 3D very much. Your eyes are only 0.1m apart so anything more than 3-4m away isn't really in 3d anyway. Everything in the distance is handled by your knowledge of it's relative size and position - which works just as well on a 2d screen anyway. Try it, cover one eye and look at the scene, you will see a difference on your desk, but no difference for the scene outside your window. That's why most 3d movies have lots of things flying at you and other gimmicks - it's because otherwise there wouldn't be much 3d-ness
- JunkDNA 17y ago
  Agreed. This is one of the reasons a sufficiently large (non-3D) IMAX screen provides an incredibly immersive experience for all kinds of long distance "big" shows like "Everest" or my childhood favorite "The Dream is Alive". You get all the right visual cues to feel as though you're looking out an airplane window zooming over terrain or standing on a mountain peak. In my experience, the IMAX shows that have been less impressive have been the ones relying on lots of close-up work. Undersea ones in particular don't feel as immersive because the camera needs to be too close to the subject in order to have sufficient detail. I would argue though that just because you don't see in 3D at a long distance, doesn't mean that the little area at 3-4m away isn't important for traditional movies. Most personal interaction is at that distance. In fact, a lot of the dialog scenes in movies are shot as though you're standing right there looking the actors in the face. I think good 3D in that range is also what pulls you into the scene and really makes you feel like you are there. There were a couple of scenes in Avatar where this was really well done, most notably when they were in the thick of the jungle and insects were buzzing around your head. That little detail really made me feel like I was standing there.
rationalbeaver 17y ago
To your point about camera focus: I believe that this was addressed in Avatar by rendering the whole scene in focus (which makes it look cartoony if you aren't viewing in 3D). To your main point: The 3D still didn't feel completely natural. I did not feel like the camera was forcing me to focus on anything in particular, but I did feel like the whole thing was slightly blurry. Maybe it was my position in the theater (off to the right side of a huge Imax screen, rather than dead center), but it detracted from the experience because I wanted to appreciate the details and they were often fuzzy due to imperfect alignment of the images.
- tocomment 17y ago
  No, Avatar did seem to focus only on one thing at a time to me. I noticed it distinctly. I was in a non-imax though.
  - winthrowe 17y ago
    Having been able to see it both formats, I found that I was able to shift my gaze and focus on something in the foreground or background in a well positioned imax seat. The other 3d format (RealD?) was far more locked to a chosen foreground object it seemed to me. YMMV
    - rationalbeaver 17y ago
      I felt the same way in the Imax. And to provide some context to my downvoting detractor, here's what I was using as the basis for my speculation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 It's a huge comment, so here's the relevant bit: "What Cameron has been doing with Avatar is to shoot in deep focus (no using the aperture and focus controls to blur out the background, a favorite technique for isolating the subject from the environment) but instead create depth by altering the angle between the two lenses dynamically, creating the illusion of a large space in which attention to depth is focused stereoscopically. Until now most 3d projects have kept the stereoscopic distance fixed, which yields the feeling of watching the story take place on a stage in front of one and occasionally having one of the props or actors protrude outwards toward the audience. By varying the angle between the lenses in the same fashion as our eyes, Cameron presents a far more immersive way of experiencing the third dimension."
tocomment 17y ago
I completely agree with you. 3D would be so much more immersive if I could look around.

by JunkDNA 17y ago

iujhygfbh 17y ago

In the real world - you don't really see 3D very much. Your eyes are only 0.1m apart so anything more than 3-4m away isn't really in 3d anyway. Everything in the distance is handled by your knowledge of it's relative size and position - which works just as well on a 2d screen anyway. Try it, cover one eye and look at the scene, you will see a difference on your desk, but no difference for the scene outside your window. That's why most 3d movies have lots of things flying at you and other gimmicks - it's because otherwise there wouldn't be much 3d-ness

JunkDNA 17y ago
Agreed. This is one of the reasons a sufficiently large (non-3D) IMAX screen provides an incredibly immersive experience for all kinds of long distance "big" shows like "Everest" or my childhood favorite "The Dream is Alive". You get all the right visual cues to feel as though you're looking out an airplane window zooming over terrain or standing on a mountain peak. In my experience, the IMAX shows that have been less impressive have been the ones relying on lots of close-up work. Undersea ones in particular don't feel as immersive because the camera needs to be too close to the subject in order to have sufficient detail. I would argue though that just because you don't see in 3D at a long distance, doesn't mean that the little area at 3-4m away isn't important for traditional movies. Most personal interaction is at that distance. In fact, a lot of the dialog scenes in movies are shot as though you're standing right there looking the actors in the face. I think good 3D in that range is also what pulls you into the scene and really makes you feel like you are there. There were a couple of scenes in Avatar where this was really well done, most notably when they were in the thick of the jungle and insects were buzzing around your head. That little detail really made me feel like I was standing there.

rationalbeaver 17y ago

To your point about camera focus: I believe that this was addressed in Avatar by rendering the whole scene in focus (which makes it look cartoony if you aren't viewing in 3D). To your main point: The 3D still didn't feel completely natural. I did not feel like the camera was forcing me to focus on anything in particular, but I did feel like the whole thing was slightly blurry. Maybe it was my position in the theater (off to the right side of a huge Imax screen, rather than dead center), but it detracted from the experience because I wanted to appreciate the details and they were often fuzzy due to imperfect alignment of the images.

tocomment 17y ago
No, Avatar did seem to focus only on one thing at a time to me. I noticed it distinctly. I was in a non-imax though.
- winthrowe 17y ago
  Having been able to see it both formats, I found that I was able to shift my gaze and focus on something in the foreground or background in a well positioned imax seat. The other 3d format (RealD?) was far more locked to a chosen foreground object it seemed to me. YMMV
  - rationalbeaver 17y ago
    I felt the same way in the Imax. And to provide some context to my downvoting detractor, here's what I was using as the basis for my speculation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 It's a huge comment, so here's the relevant bit: "What Cameron has been doing with Avatar is to shoot in deep focus (no using the aperture and focus controls to blur out the background, a favorite technique for isolating the subject from the environment) but instead create depth by altering the angle between the two lenses dynamically, creating the illusion of a large space in which attention to depth is focused stereoscopically. Until now most 3d projects have kept the stereoscopic distance fixed, which yields the feeling of watching the story take place on a stage in front of one and occasionally having one of the props or actors protrude outwards toward the audience. By varying the angle between the lenses in the same fashion as our eyes, Cameron presents a far more immersive way of experiencing the third dimension."

tocomment 17y ago

I completely agree with you. 3D would be so much more immersive if I could look around.