Penguin King 3D

[Jbug]

I blind bought this from Amazon.uk. They sure get some interesting 3D nature documentaries. I'll give my review once I get hold of it.

[BleedOrange11]

The 3D trailer looks pretty nice. I assume it will be of the same documentary and 3D quality as Flying Monsters since Attenborough and Chris Parks are also involved in this one.

The Bachelor King 3D with David Attenborough - Promo - YouTube

[Zivouhr]

Flocks of Penguins make for nice layers of 3D, all of the penguins one behind the other in rows, into the depth of the background.

If this UK release is listed as PAL, someone in another thread mentioned it'll also work on blu ray 3D NTSC, since the PAL/NTSC doesn't matter when it's blu ray? Just wondering about that. These documentaries look interesting and not available in the US.

[Jsmith82]

Awww - I love pinguins. I mean, who can't right?

Not to open a can of worms but the quality of that preview made me think this is a conversion - has anyone confirmed?

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

Awww - I love pinguins. I mean, who can't right?

Not to open a can of worms but the quality of that preview made me think this is a conversion - has anyone confirmed?

Good question.
Blending the two images with only the eyes, the image has depth, but not much with layers from what I see at the moment.

Maybe they had the cameras too close for some shots, otherwise, maybe it's a conversion.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

Not to open a can of worms but the quality of that preview made me think this is a conversion - has anyone confirmed?

Really? I thought it looked very much like native 3D photography. It even has that "digital sheen" look. Sure they could have increased interaxial for a few scenes and the 3D might not be up to IMAX standards, but it still looked good to me.

I think the shots with the flatter "cardboard cutout" appearance were captured with telescopic lenses, zooming in on the subject matter. It's probably tough to get close to wild penguins with wide angle lenses and a camera crew for every shot. That's just the nature of the beast, filming wildlife in open landscapes, rather than creating it with CGI or shooting camera friendly creatures in underwater or controllable environments.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I think the shots with the flatter "cardboard cutout" appearance were captured with telescopic lenses, zooming in on the subject matter. It's probably tough to get close to wild penguins with wide angle lenses and a camera crew for every shot. That's just the nature of the beast, filming wildlife, rather than creating it with CGI.

This could be - you definitely saw what I saw though from your description, some shots looked layered but the objects making up the layers seemed flat (cardboard).

Then you see the big wide shot of hundreds of pinguins hanging out and moving and I think to myself anyone that would take the time to convert that clip is crazy! WAY to much to rotoscope.

Maybe some native footage and some 2D stock converted? Or perhaps you're right in thinking it's just damn tough to get close to them with the equipment - If I was a penguin and some guy with a big machine in his face being followed by another guy and a boom mic came running up on me I'd bounce lol.

Zivouhr you may be correct in lens placement as well, I have a Bloggie3D and because the lenses are so close together, it captures good 3D but the closer an object is to the lens the flatter it seems to get because you lose the wide perspective showing the sides of the object.



Anyhow, may purchase this just because penguins are awesome. Jbug do you know if this is region free?

[BleedOrange11]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how stereo filming works without actually using a 3D camera myself, but it is entirely possible (and extremely common) to create cardboard cutouts with native 3D cameras. That's what's happening here.

Two stages while setting the stereo base

Set the maximum disparity so that it will not hurt people's eyes (Bercovitz formula)
Set the sterescopic perceived depth so that it looks realistic (Roundness formula)

Often you cannot achieve both.

In that case use the smaller of the two calculated bases, to avoid hurting anybody.

...

Stereoscopic range

The stereoscopic depth has to be coded in the acceptable disparity range, which is limited for an inexperienced audience.

If there is a big distance between the nearest object and the furthest object, the disparity range available is not enough to show everything in full depth. The result is flat stereo or card-boarding.

http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/300stereobaseintro.html

Basically, because of the nature of the wildlife, they are forced to shoot in wide open environments from long distances away with zoom lenses. All three of those contribute to "flat 3D." If they increased interaxial for the straight on shots to improve the roundness of the penguins, the disparity of the background would be too wide for the viewer's eyes to converge upon. They possibly could have done a better job achieving roundness by using more downward camera angles where the ground is right behind the penguins of interest to eliminate the background disparity issue and be able to push parallax farther while maintaining comfort.

Stereoscopic roundness versus acceptable disparity

Stereoscopic roundness is the modern term for describing how deep objects look, also called stereoscopic perceived depth.

The correct perception of roundness (perfect roundness, or roundness equals one) can be tested by photographing a sphere stereoscopically. Roundness is perfect when the diameter of the sphere is the same as the stereoscopically perceived depth of the sphere.

Unfortunately roundness is not so simple to set up, because the perceived depth changes, depending on how far away the stereo pair are viewed from.

Roundness for any particular viewing distance is set at the time of taking the stereo pair by adjusting:

the stereo base (B)
distance to the nearest object (n)

So stereoscopic roundness is a useful concept which encapsulates all but one of the factors to be considered when setting the stereo base.

Roundness does not include the factor of maximum acceptable disparity (MAD) which is measured by parallax (P).


Two step process for setting stereo base

It is sensible to get the roundness right first. Adjust between too much perceived depth, versus flat stereo and cardboarding.
Then reduce the stereo base as needed, to allow for maximum acceptable disparity (MAD).

Acceptable disparity adjustment takes precedence over roundness, if you intend to show images to a naive audience.

You see a lot of "flat stereo" at the 3D movies.

Experts can fuse a much bigger disparity than neophytes. It is easier to set up good stereo depth for skilled viewers.

http://nzphoto.tripod.com/3d/300stereobaseintro.html

[BleedOrange11]

Also, try sitting farther away from your display when watching the trailer and notice how "roundness" increases.

[EricJ]

Still, the fact that they (and just about every other feature documentarian these days) have to give it a "Lion King"-like title just to get kids interested in an entire nature movie....am I the only one who keeps hearing Monty Python lines flashing through his head?

("Well, maybe instead of a Lion King, we could make it a Penguin King!"
"I'm not fighting some little penguin! The lion is in the contract!")

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I think the shots with the flatter "cardboard cutout" appearance were captured with telescopic lenses, zooming in on the subject matter. It's probably tough to get close to wild penguins with wide angle lenses and a camera crew for every shot.

For the shot with the penguin with the baby underneath, the close up there looks nearly 2D, but probably because it was filmed from a far distance as not to scare away the subject. Most of the video looks pretty good though I'll agree, having another look.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Still, the fact that they (and just about every other feature documentarian these days) have to give it a "Lion King"-like title just to get kids interested in an entire nature movie....am I the only one who keeps hearing Monty Python lines flashing through his head?

("Well, maybe instead of a Lion King, we could make it a Penguin King!"
"I'm not fighting some little penguin! The lion is in the contract!")

That, or they're referring to the King penguin species, just smaller than the biggest Emperor Penguin.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

For the shot with the penguin with the baby underneath, the close up there looks nearly 2D, but probably because it was filmed from a far distance as not to scare away the subject. Most of the video looks pretty good though I'll agree, having another look.

I agree. There's a mix of good and bad shots, but overall pretty good 3D. That shot with the baby was probably the worst-looking one. I'm sure there's something that they could have done to improve volume there.

I really enjoyed the scene at the end of the trailer where the penguin walks toward the camera and pokes his head into negative parallax though. That one was nicely executed. I liked the snow falling on the penguins too.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

That, or they're referring to the King penguin species, just smaller than the biggest Emperor Penguin.

Think the original title was "The Bachelor King" (ie., the King penguin who hadn't found a mate), and had the nature-reference inserted at the last minute so we wouldn't see the B-word and think it was a slob-single-guy comedy.

Still, penguins, whether they March or not, do tend to get first pick at the marketable mainstream nature-feature documentaries.
(Although it is hard to stay away from old Python references: "Yes, penguins, those web-footed, flightless, comical little b******s...")

[samdvd1]

Just watched this one. The 3D was pretty good for the majority, especially the footage of the skewers and other birds attacking the young. There were some scenes that were obviously filmed from a distance as to not disturb the subjects and these scenes do suffer a little from a lack of depth. Overall, I'd rate the 3D at about 3.5/5.

[Big3dfan]

how do you compare this with Happy Feet 3D ?

[samdvd1]

I'm yet to see that one and I don't currently own it.

[hugoagogo69]

This is part of a trilogy David Attenborough done for sky uk. While the 3d is impressive in this , kingdom of plants & the recent Galapagos are reference quality 3d.

[samdvd1]

Will be released in IMAX in the US 24th May so I imagine a 3D Blu in region A will be forthcoming.
http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/3...y-24thus/12351

Only 20 and 40 minute versions though? The UK release is closer to 80...