Official 3D thread

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since 3D is becoming the new buzz, I thought I would start a informational thread to keep folks abreast of 3D development, TV and player pricing, and how the technology works. Over the next two weeks I will be attending 3D workshops design to show directors and DP's how to effectively use 3D to enhance the story narrative. My first class was yesterday, and I learned some things that I didn't know about at first, and there were some things I already knew. There are three flavors of 3D, and they are broken down like this;

1. Anaglyph - All the current 3D Blu-Rays use this process. This is can be played on any color television, with any cables, and any Blu-Ray player and requires only cardboard 2 color glasses that come with the disc. Its by far the most compatible form of 3D avalible. The 3D image is placed within a single video feild which is why a television with high frame rate is not required. The glasses produce a 3D effect by blocking out certain parts of the image. Unfortunitly this form of 3D produces a terrible picture so its not worth having. It mutes the colors, drives down the resolution, and produces nasty ghosting around objects almost all the time. But it is the only way to get a true 3D effect from old equitment.

2. Checkerboard - To get this you need either a new upcoming 3D Blu-Ray player or a Playstation 3, a 120 hz television, an HDMI capable, and a pair of active shutter glasses. All current 3D ready televisions use this process. It essentially halfs the resolution. Taking a 1920 x 1080p signal and puts it through a pattern halfing the horizontal resolution sending a resolution of 960 x 1080 to each eye. The difference is quality between Checkerboard 3D and Full HD 3D will be similar to the differences between 1080i and 1080p. Still this form of 3D will produce full color steroimages therefore should look far superior to anaglyph. Those who now have 120 hz television and a Playstation 3 are already good to go, so if this form of 3D is good enough for you your all set.

3D Full HD - Requires an HDMI 1.4 player, active shutter glasses, and a HDMI 1.4 television. No current player (not even the Playstation 3) or television is capable of this. Everyone will need both a new player and new television to play this. This sends full 1080p (1920 x 1080) resolution to each eye. This is 3D without compromise. The need for new equitment will Im sure keep most consumers away for some time but if you want the optimum 3D at home experiance this is the way to get it.

Right now I am currently at No.2 with most of my home theaters, but I do have a HDMI 1.4 compliant 240hz 3D ready television, and I do plan on getting Sony new full HD 3D player pretty soon. My buddy from Sony already gave me a Blu ray 3D copy of Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs, and I currently have a Blu ray 3D copy of Chicken Little, Up, and The Night before Christmas that I snagged from the studio.

As I gain more knowledge, I will post it to this thread to keep everyone informed on the developments with 3D

[dean_martin]

Thanks, Sir T, for keeping us up to date.

[Kam]

Thanks, as always, for the info! Had no idea about the 240hz HD3D issue. i loved 60hz!

Also, if you ever do come across any info/articles on the 3D production side versus just the consumer viewing side, I, for one, would be very interested in learning more!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Plenty of commercials during the Academy Awards show last night about the Samsung 3D LED TV. http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/02/23/samsung-3d-led-tv-launch-everything-you-need-to-know/

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My 3D class was pretty interesting yesterday. Good 3D movies will not be a “gimmick”. Anyone who constantly refers to Stereoscopic 3D Cinema as such is uninformed and to me, sounds almost like for example, people calling “all blondes dumb”. The fact is, 3D filmmaking is already proving to be a complex technological science to do well. It is no more a “gimmick” than when a 2D cinematographer purposely uses a shallow depth of field in a scene to draw attention to an actor while making the remainder of the image in the frame purposely out of focus to achieve that end……something which is commonly done in traditional filmmaking day in and day out of which nobody complains or even gives a second thought to.

As the industry gains more experience, I believe filmmakers interested in doing modern day 3D are more inclined to treat it as another artistic tool to capture the attention of theater-goers and home theater enthusiasts by using 3D depth to accentuate thee emotional dynamics of a motion picture. For example, when the 3D convergence distance is deep behind the screen, subconsciously, it invokes a sense of a large empty space, majestic grandeur, etc. the opposite of an intimate setting. A traditional cinematographer would only have something like a panoramic view in his arsenal to achieve this same emotional dynamic.

I have basically seen every format of 3D out there, and here is my impressions on each of them. I will start with IMAX 3D in its two flavors.

IMAX 3D comes in two flavors, IMAX 3D film, and IMAX 3D digital. The film version has the highest resolution of any 3D format in the field. However it is extremely expensive to produce requiring two 65mm cameras to be strapped together which are quite loud, and shots that are very short in duration because of the speed in which the camera records the visuals. IMAX 3D digital is what I call fake IMAX 3D even thought it is just as effective as film based IMAX 3D. It is really two 2K images projected on to a smaller size IMAX screen(at least it has the same aspect ratio). For me IMAX 3D is the most difficult to watch for long periods of time, which is why I do not always choose it for my 3D experience. One of the things I notice from IMAX 3D is the depth of field is not as profound as other 3D formats, but it has a better ability to bring things out into the audience. Unfortunately this effect causes more eye strain than other formats because your neck muscles subconsciously have to compensate for linear alignment. Another issue I found is the glasses. IMAX uses big linear passive polarized plastic glasses for the viewers that do not provide the best possible experience. They lower contrast in some dark scenes, and cause a bit more ghosting of objects which causes problems with refocusing your eyes quickly enough to follow the whole picture in fast action scenes and thus you might miss some important parts. The pluses include having more pop because the viewing area is so much bigger, therefore giving filmmakers more space to “play” in and less edge obstruction. IMAX 3D requires that you keep you head very still and avoid tilting or moving it or ghosting will become a problem.

I will choose IMAX 3D when the soundtrack is more dynamic, because the theaters sound system is usually lower in distortions, wider in frequency range, and just sound more pleasing to the ears than typical sound systems in theaters.