4 ms·

There's a way to build a 3-D adapter setup (with mirrors) for an SLR-style camera that actually splits the image across horizontally, so you get two wide images

There's a way to build a 3-D adapter setup (with mirrors) for an SLR-style camera that actually splits the image across horizontally, so you get two wide images instead of two narrow ones. Not sure if that's useful for a stereoscope, however. For video or projection, it would be superior. 3-D pictures are very entertaining and atmospheric. I have a Kodak stereo camera that I've taken on trips to various countries since high school, and a 3-D projector and silver screen. With polarized glasses, you can walk right up to the screen and still see the depth. After seeing it, people almost always asked where they could get this or why it isn't used more. The movie studios deserve scorn for ruining the marketability of 3-D yet again by releasing one fake "3-D" movie after another, as we finally had really good and widespread 3-D projection available.

PaulHoule 2y ago
The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an "add on" to a regular movie that contextualizes 3-D as just another money grab. The trouble is somewhere around 5-10% people find stereo movies uncomfortable and 20% or so people are stereo blind and don't get anything out of them. So you have to show the same movie in both formats which, as it see it, is something that costs money instead of making money, and is only going to work for movies big enough and theaters big enough to be able to do that. (e.g. the multiplex at the mall is part of a chain that teeters on the edge of bankruptcy so the local arthouse theater sometimes shows movies like "Deadpool & Wolverine" in their first run) People associate 3-d with that kind of movie but actually the rapid cuts and motion of movies like that don't give your brain time to lock onto stereo whereas documentaries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_3D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_3D) and dramatic content are really powerful. I have some software that works like Disney's multiplane camera (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera) that I use for synthesizing stereo scenes (and other things) and one problem that turns up is that the curvature of objects hides some pixels from one eye but not the other eye. You can't just cut some objects out of the scene and slide those parts relative to each other but you've got to have something for those pixels or make something up. The flip side of that however is that a stereo picture of a close up of a person shows maybe 10-15% more area of the face which means more of the little muscles that indicate emotion. You are seeing a little bit more in a 3-d movie just as you see a little bit more when you see actors on stage and even if you're not aware of it consciously I think it adds to your emotional reaction. (... so far that software has used a simple rendering approach but I'm very likely to upgrade it to do ray tracing because I want to get very accurate depth of field effects including occlusion)
- DidYaWipe 2y ago
  "The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an "add on" to a regular movie" Well, they didn't just "get stuck" there; they put themselves there. That was a choice. They should have shot in 3-D when they wanted to release in 3-D, and refrained from post-processed fake 3-D in all cases. Seth Rogan said that he and... I don't remember, maybe the director of Green Hornet wanted to shoot in 3-D and the studio turned them down. After it was done, the studio changed its mind and made it into fake 3-D. And yes, there's a misperception that "action" and "spectacle" movies are the best for 3-D. Wrong. The coolest 3-D pictures I've shot are often indoor scenes with lots of objects; for example, a long dinner table set with dishware and glasses, with an open door in the background revealing a cobblestone street. Most people scoffing at "3-D" have probably seen almost none of it. Many people have only seen one legitimate 3-D movie: Avatar. Otherwise they might have seen a Pixar movie rendered in 3-D; or if they're lucky, Hugo. Or the Transformers one where they tear up Chicago. Most did not see Drive Angry. Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to name a modern movie shot in 3-D.
  - buck746 2y ago
    The Hobbit films were shot in native 3D, and 48hz. It's a shame we can't get the high frame rate version at home, more of a shame we can't get Avatar The Way of Water at 48. The hobbit could've worked as 2 films, but 3 was stretching it too far.

PaulHoule 2y ago

The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an "add on" to a regular movie that contextualizes 3-D as just another money grab. The trouble is somewhere around 5-10% people find stereo movies uncomfortable and 20% or so people are stereo blind and don't get anything out of them. So you have to show the same movie in both formats which, as it see it, is something that costs money instead of making money, and is only going to work for movies big enough and theaters big enough to be able to do that. (e.g. the multiplex at the mall is part of a chain that teeters on the edge of bankruptcy so the local arthouse theater sometimes shows movies like "Deadpool & Wolverine" in their first run) People associate 3-d with that kind of movie but actually the rapid cuts and motion of movies like that don't give your brain time to lock onto stereo whereas documentaries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_3D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_3D) and dramatic content are really powerful. I have some software that works like Disney's multiplane camera (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera) that I use for synthesizing stereo scenes (and other things) and one problem that turns up is that the curvature of objects hides some pixels from one eye but not the other eye. You can't just cut some objects out of the scene and slide those parts relative to each other but you've got to have something for those pixels or make something up. The flip side of that however is that a stereo picture of a close up of a person shows maybe 10-15% more area of the face which means more of the little muscles that indicate emotion. You are seeing a little bit more in a 3-d movie just as you see a little bit more when you see actors on stage and even if you're not aware of it consciously I think it adds to your emotional reaction. (... so far that software has used a simple rendering approach but I'm very likely to upgrade it to do ray tracing because I want to get very accurate depth of field effects including occlusion)

DidYaWipe 2y ago
"The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an "add on" to a regular movie" Well, they didn't just "get stuck" there; they put themselves there. That was a choice. They should have shot in 3-D when they wanted to release in 3-D, and refrained from post-processed fake 3-D in all cases. Seth Rogan said that he and... I don't remember, maybe the director of Green Hornet wanted to shoot in 3-D and the studio turned them down. After it was done, the studio changed its mind and made it into fake 3-D. And yes, there's a misperception that "action" and "spectacle" movies are the best for 3-D. Wrong. The coolest 3-D pictures I've shot are often indoor scenes with lots of objects; for example, a long dinner table set with dishware and glasses, with an open door in the background revealing a cobblestone street. Most people scoffing at "3-D" have probably seen almost none of it. Many people have only seen one legitimate 3-D movie: Avatar. Otherwise they might have seen a Pixar movie rendered in 3-D; or if they're lucky, Hugo. Or the Transformers one where they tear up Chicago. Most did not see Drive Angry. Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to name a modern movie shot in 3-D.
- buck746 2y ago
  The Hobbit films were shot in native 3D, and 48hz. It's a shame we can't get the high frame rate version at home, more of a shame we can't get Avatar The Way of Water at 48. The hobbit could've worked as 2 films, but 3 was stretching it too far.