Re: why 3d is no longer popular - article


Much of this information is available on the Internet, such as in the Virtual Stereoscopic Library  I have mentioned this several times, but so far no one has mentioned if they read any of the books or proceedings, let alone all of them.

I read "The Theory of Stereoscopic Transmission and its application to the motion picture" from this list. It was quite hard to read for me (partly because it is a long book in a not native language with rather old style) and I did not find it very useful in my case.
The parts I understood were either not relevant for me (e.g. film projection) or happened to be things that I already knew but expressed in a pretty complicated way. Some parts have even (rare) statements that sound just wrong (do not remember which) and there is a part that I just did not understand at all but given the context it might not be useful to me. That is the overall picture I remember.
There are nonetheless small bits that were interesting ways to interpret known facts that I have still to check/sense. I also remember that the book says several times that you should avoid to display outside of the range of N=0..3 (N is a metric defined in the book) which in other terms means having an on-screen disparity of 1×IPD to -2×IPD max that contradicts your affirmation about -10×IPD of another post. ;-)

They put most or all of the objects in a scene behind the screen, which is ridiculous, because there is very little depth range there as compared to in front of the screen, which has a comfortable viewing range that is many times that behind the screen.

I still disagree on the distribution of the depth budget, but we discussed it in the thread mentioned before so it is not on what I react.

Actually, I would argue that using the positive space is far from being a ridiculous choice. If you ever composed a 3D picture, you know how it is difficult to have a good composition with pop without window violation. Furthermore, a lot (most?) of the scenes are not good candidates to have a pop out effect. Also, because of the geometry, the more you want to pop, the more centered the element has to be (otherwise you might run out of screen to display it). By the way, there are many stereophotographs that have amazing 3D totally without pop, which is a good clue that the wow does not lie in pop (though good pop is one of the tools to create the wow). In addition, the depth budget is in favor of positive space in my opinion, but we already discussed it.

To illustrate this, I can take an example. I rarely go to the theater thus I saw very few 3D movies on big screen, but I remember one which was Prometheus. I did not like the movie, but I spent a good time nonetheless because of the truly amazing 3D and photography (I did not know about stereoscopy at this time). Most of this movie has depth behind the screen with good technique and as a totally candid spectator I was blown away by the 3D.

The so-called "wow factor" is a result of good stereography, which can be at any fusible distance, near, far, or in between, again if shot correctly.

I agree and it summarizes what I said before.
But it contradicts what you said yourself, as, if the scene is not good for a pop, it is not ridiculous to use positive space only.

Regarding the popularity of 3D movies, I disagree with Robert's assessment that 3D aids action scenes. That's because they usually involve the camera flying all over the place, and that produces a natural type of 3D experience called motion parallax. Adding stereo adds little to nothing in those cases. What you really want in those cases is a higher frame rate.

I agree that stereo does not help much in these cases as another strong 3D clue is given, and actually since it is harder to do stereo right in these circumstances, it might even be worst.
Concerning the frame rate, you can also play with the shutter speed to add motion blur at the same frame rate to "smooth" the movements (anyway, if there is a lot of movement we do not need a lot of details).

Any type of movie is much, much better in 3-D than in 2-D.   3-D is normal and natural.  2-D is a severe distortion with everything squashed down flat, and no Z axis.  Who wants to look at distorted pictures?  2-D is always a real waste of time and money.

It sounds very fanatic.

Many scenes are interesting to be photographed but cannot be composed interestingly in stereo, so I guess that it is the same with movies.
If I follow your reasoning, you avoid 3D movies with VFX as they are huge distortion of the reality and probably all 3D movies too as you have only one imposed viewpoint on the scene contrary to real life (and they tell a story which is itself a distortion). By the way, live performances are the most realist 3D for sure. ;-)


Join to automatically receive all group messages.