Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Steedeel]

Thanks Jeff, so just to clarify. You and your team all think bluray is safe for the next 5-10 years?

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

?

Rah

Sorry, clumsily worded. I meant that from the audience's point of view -- where the rubber meets the road -- we're not forced to look through 2 red and blue (or green) colored filters any more (at the theater), which had the effect of distorting the perfectly fine color film that was used on some stereoscopic movies in the 50s, in order to transmit the effect to people's eyes and brain.

The true "full color" is there finally, for the audience to see. Albeit, dim... thanks to polarized filters.

Hence, "...we're still watching these movies the old 50s way. They're just full color now."

[Jeff Kleist]

A very safe bet and well beyond that. It's really not worth worrying about.

Just like during the format war, there's an awful lot of people who don't care to do research and analyze, or are on people's payrolls to push an agenda. So many of the people writing about the format war were computer people who had never given home video a second thought, being fed by Microsoft. The same people who are being fed by the server, hard drive and networking companies about streaming and downloads today.

[Steedeel]

thanks Jeff

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Of course, in my way of thinking, none of these techniques are actually what I would consider 3D. They are stereoscopic, either way, real or fake. Each eye is getting a 2-dimensional image from a single, director-chosen vantage point, reflected off or emitted from a 2-dimensional screen.

Multi-channel surround sound can be considered 3D because it actually envelops you from all sides. Only through holography could the picture truly be considered 3D for the audience.

Until then, we're still watching these movies the old 50s way. They're just full color now.

I would add that there are many cues to depth other than stereoscopic vision or photography -- they are just less dramatic. Among them are: peripheral vision (try restricting it severely and watch some of the depth go away), the angle of coverage of the lens being used on the camera (widescreen processes such as Todd-AO, D-150, and others sometimes achieved an illusion of depth by using ultra wide angle lenses, as did Kubrick, as discussed in the special features for The King's Speech --- I prefer some of the depth effects in the 70mm Todd-AO version of Around the World in 80 Days [1956] and Grand Prix to some stereoscopic photography), the camera moving in or pulling back, the camera moving sideways with different layers of the image moving at different rates (see the shot of Ben-Hur moving through the cave in a bent-over posture), color and light contrast, and one that is mysterious to me: red objects superimposed over certain other colors in modern glossy magazine and CD insert printing.

"Until then, we're still watching these movies the old 50s way. They're just full color now."

Most (or all) of the 3D movies I've seen from the '50s through the '80s were in color; I don't remember seeing a Black and White one. They include Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, some Disney short cartoons, Arch Obler's The Bubble, and Lenny Lipton's films.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Sorry, clumsily worded. I meant that from the audience's point of view -- where the rubber meets the road -- we're not forced to look through 2 red and blue (or green) colored filters any more (at the theater), which had the effect of distorting the perfectly fine color film that was used on some stereoscopic movies in the 50s, in order to transmit the effect to people's eyes and brain.

3D Comic Books used glasses with colored filters, but all of the 3D films I listed in my last post used Polaroid glasses, as far back as Dial M ... I didn't encounter red and blue glasses in film until we saw a 3D animated film at a Film Festival in Corvallis about three years ago. Now they are back to Polaroid, or something like it.

[Jeff Kleist]

The only 3D movie I saw during my childhood was Starchaser The Legend of Orin. Something tells me that's not coming to BD3D any time soon That and Captain Eo, both movies were polarized

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by garyrc

3D Comic Books used glasses with colored filters, but all of the 3D films I listed in my last post used Polaroid glasses, as far back as Dial M ... I didn't encounter red and blue glasses in film until we saw a 3D animated film at a Film Festival in Corvallis about three years ago. Now they are back to Polaroid, or something like it.

I stand corrected. By you, Mr. Harris and Mr. Kleist. Thank you for setting me straight. There really is nothing new to this presentation technology. I figured (without researching, my error) that there must me some new innovation to it, other than the use of digital projectors. I guess not.

So what's next? Digital Cinerama?

Addendum: Just educated myself, like I should have done in the first place before I started typing. Polarized, color, stereoscopic filmmaking goes back to 1936 in Germany. I thought "3D" had been analglyph before the 80s. Boy do I feel like an idiot!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

I stand corrected. By you, Mr. Harris and Mr. Kleist. Thank you for setting me straight. There really is nothing new to this presentation technology. I figured (without researching, my error) that there must me some new innovation to it, other than the use of digital projectors. I guess not.
!

The advantage of digital technology should not be underestimated, both for the production and exhibition of 3D films.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by 42041

The advantage of digital technology should not be underestimated, both for the production and exhibition of 3D films.

Sure, it gives us crisper, more stable images... but it's essentially the same, tired, 75 year-old process.

[nathan_393]

This information about 3D technology is completely new to me - I find it kind of funny that we're still using the same technology. I really don't think it'll last. Jeff, what are your thoughts on this, given current industry trends and historical precedence?

Sorry if the question's already been asked in the past few pages.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

I stand corrected. By you, Mr. Harris and Mr. Kleist. Thank you for setting me straight. There really is nothing new to this presentation technology. I figured (without researching, my error) that there must me some new innovation to it, other than the use of digital projectors. I guess not.

yes and no. It is not digital projectors. In the 50's polarization needed two film projectors and two film reals that needed to be in synch that made it expensivbe and complex, with the advent of colour film 3D transitioned to anaglyph that messed up colour but it was as simple as showing a 2D film. Today 3D has the best of both worlds it has the simplisity and the same single projector you show 2D and the colour accuracy of polarization. So the tech is different. Also Technicolor created the same technique but for film projectors


so it is not limited to digital.


The revolution strated with Imax when shutter glasses where created, then it got re-invented with "what if the shutter is on the projector and not the glasses" and Technicolor and Sony added what if a simple lens can be made that combines two images together and sends them out to the same place.

[Jeff Kleist]

And it's come full circle, with the new RealD technology that moves the shutters from the glasses to the TV. You'll see it on Samsung TVs next year, and in my mind it's definately the way to go.

This information about 3D technology is completely new to me - I find it kind of funny that we're still using the same technology. I really don't think it'll last. Jeff, what are your thoughts on this, given current industry trends and historical precedence?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

3D isn't going anywhere, but as with most consumer electronics, you get what you pay for, so when you go 3D don't cheap out, and buy the best set you can afford. It's just going to keep moving into cheaper sets and inside 5 years it'll be harder to buy a TV without 3D than with it. Just like pretty much all of next year's Blu players will be 3D enabled.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Of course, in my way of thinking, none of these techniques are actually what I would consider 3D. They are stereoscopic, either way, real or fake. Each eye is getting a 2-dimensional image from a single, director-chosen vantage point, reflected off or emitted from a 2-dimensional screen.

Multi-channel surround sound can be considered 3D because it actually envelops you from all sides. Only through holography could the picture truly be considered 3D for the audience.

everything is trickery. why is surround sound any more true. A person at your left talks to you then that is one sound wave and it is directly to your left, your left ear gets 100% and the sound is blocked by your head from reaching your right ear. Now lets say that in the film a sound comes from your left, in a 5.1 that means front-left and rear-left speaker, so instead of one sound wave you get two, so it is not the same thing, plus because it is front left and rear left your head is not in the way in the same way that it would be from true left sound. Plus surround calibrations are created for exactly one sweat spot with the assumption of no interference, so it will be off if you are not at the right spot and it will probably be off even if you are and there are other people there.


I guess if we are sticklers the way you are for viewing 3D then surround sound is neither 3D nor surround.


Plus you only have two eyes and each eye only sees in 2D, so stereoscopic 3D would more or less be exactly what you would see if you where seeing through that third persons eyes.

Let me ask you this, if someone took you and tied you up would you stop seeing theworld in 3D because you can't see what is going on behind your head? what if they add a head restraint and now you can't move your head at all and can't see what is happening to the left and right of your head? what if they add binoculars or something similar so that all you can see is directly in front of you and you can't roll your eyes to see a bit more to the right/left?The world does not stop having three dimensions in any of those scenarios and you don't stop seeing the world in 3D either. So why would you consider that it is not 3D when a story told from a precise location does the same?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Sure, it gives us crisper, more stable images... but it's essentially the same, tired, 75 year-old process.

See, you've underestimated it
Yes, the fundamental principle of how 3D is projected is the same. Everything else isn't, and to say there's "nothing new" with this wave of 3D is to ignore the practical realities of the filmmaking technology now and 60 years ago.