|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 3-D HDTV will be the savior of movie 3-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-08-2010 12:05 AM
3D on television can work "however you want". There is no "impossed standard". The "standard" only talks about how the 3D signal should go into the TV/projector. Preferably, this will be done through a HDMI 1.4 "connector", although some HDMI 1.3 "connectors" on some machines can also handle the some of the 3D part of the standard.
So the TV manufacturers can choose how to display this "standard" 3D signal (left-and-right stereoscopic frame pairs).
Most TV manufacturers have chosen to use the same frame-sequential method that has existed for 25+ years. Except now they use up to 60fps-per-eye (120hz) instead of 60hz (30fps-per-eye) that was the norm with the video 3D field-sequential system of the 80's and 90's. No other difference. Oh, and the picture resolution can be full HD per eye now, of course.
The frame-sequential method that is now mostly used on current 3D HDTV's (i.e. by Sony, Samsung, etc) uses active liquid crystal shutter glasses and rapidly show the left-and-right frames on the TV screen alternatively at 120hz (i.e. as oppossed to the faster=better 144hz commonly used in theater systems like RealD, Dolby or Master Image).
They are basically a slower (=worse) XpanD system, that uses active glasses (kind-of-bulky, need recharge batteries, they are selling for ~$150 a pair although they cost <$15 to manufacture) that alternatively "close" one eye and then the other.
A few manufacturers (Hyundai, JVC) have TV sets that display the 3D picture using a circular polarized system in which each alternative line is polarized in one direction. They use passive (=cheap, light weight) glasses, like those used in RealD/Master Image and both images are presented at the same time on the screen (i.e. no 120hz "flicker"). The downside is that with the current models each image gets half the vertical resolution instead of the full 1080 lines of HDTV. A set with double the vertical resolution (i.e. 1920 x 2160) would take care of this limitation, at an added cost, of course.
In the future we'll see yet other systems being used, but most of them will be either polarized or frame-sequential, like they are now.
Current 2D TV sets ignore the "can you handle a 3D signal?" query that the 3D-capable equipment (i.e. video console, blu-ray player, TV box) send through the HDMI cable, signaling the equipment to send a 2D-only signal (i.e. just one of the views of the 3D pair), and thus be fully compatible with older non-3D TV's.
If the TV replies (via the HDMI cable) that indeed it can take 3D signals, then it will receive a signal pair to what amounts to up to 60fps full HD (but can be any of other standard such as 48-fps 720p signals, etc). The display will then show these views the best it can (i.e. at 120hz left-and-right alternatively at full HD).
Most current 3D TV sets are "regular 2D TV's capable of showing images at least at 120hz and accepting them up to that rate (i.e. up to 120fps or 60fps-pairs, though 48fps input is enough for film-content).
Then you buy a ~$200 "3D kit" that includes the glasses and an infrared transmitter to sync the signal to the glasses wirelessly. Hook it up, and voilá. 3D TV. Some manufacturers will include the infrared emitter (a $0.02 LED "bulb") in some of their TV models so you don't have to use the little separate box. Each manufacturer is sending the link signal however they want, mostly by different infrared pulses, so their glasses are usually incompatible among them. Some third party glasses and emitter kits are available, as well as some "universal glasses" that know how to link to the different infrared signals of a set of brands.
Now you just need some content, from say a 3D cable/satellite box, a modern video console or a 3D-enabled blu-ray player playing back a 3D enconded blu-ray disc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-08-2010 01:01 AM
3D TV sucks ass. It hasn't really progressed much since 1987. Sure, the resolution is higher and the flickering is faster, but the flickering is still EXTREMELY annoying and noticeable. 120 is far too slow. I would think that 600Hz would be the minimum speed you would do for shutter glasses. The 3D looks like ass, too. The demo I saw had some dog doing tricks. The dog was in front of whatever was behind him, but his face was flat. It was just wrong. They had some other 3D stuff that looked better, but the glasses are extremely annoying. It is extraordinarily pathetic that the same technology that worked for $39 in 1987 must cost around $200 these days. Have we not made any advances in technology? I don't want my grandpa's 3D! Ah hell, I don't need 3D at all.
3D HDTV will not be the savior of anything.
Oh, and IMAX 3D is way flickery, too, at least what I saw with the shutter glasses. Flicky flicky flick!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-08-2010 02:12 AM
Pls allow me to reiterate that 3D TV's and 3D in general, as is in use today, is absolutely, totally, completely, 100.00% exactly the very same that has always been used for many-many-many years in the past, as many as 60+ years in many cases.
Let me repeat in case someone thinks that any system commonly used today produces any (significantly) different results from any other system or from system used in the past.
Again, they are all exactly, totally, the very-very same.
They all produce what amounts to the SAME exact left-eye and right-eye pictures on the screen at "the same time" as photographed by the director/DP/TV/etc.
The minute differences, and one that does NOT AFFECT THE 3D ASPECT OF THE IMAGE HARDLY AT ALL, has to do with some of the systems commonly allowing slightly better/worse color fidelity (i.e. Dolby color correction) or having the left-and-right images on the screen at "exactly" the same time or 1/60th or 1/120th or 1/144th of a second "out of phase" or commonly behaving better or worse in the "ghosting" department (less "double image").
That's it.
If somebody thinks they see a "3D difference" with each system, it's only because they don't know what they are talking about or they are not seeing exactly the same film, from exactly the same seat, on exactly the same screen (size). Otherwise, all the systems (when properly lighted and calibrated) would look exactly the same to 99% of the people (those not too susceptible to the "flicker").
Again, ex-ac-tly the same. I'm tired of people claiming that the 3D in some systems is "better" or "worse" than any other.
The brightness MAY BE, but you can use a brighter lamp and light the same in all the systems. And regardless, the brigthness doesn't (really) affect the "3D-ness". And once again, you can always light them all the same using a brighter projector/lamp, etc.
The color may be a little different, but that doesn't (significantly) affect the 3D-ness. Here Dolby alters it the most (reduced color space), but not significantly and again doesn't affect the 3D-ness.
The illumination uniformity may be, but that has to do with using a gain screen or not and can be mitigated (curved screen, lower gain) and, once again, does NOT affect the 3D-ness of the picture, just the picture overall.
And the flicker, when fast enough (i.e. over 144hz, ideally over 200hz), is fast enough for most people that they shouldn't see an advantage over non-flickery systems (i.e. Imax, dual-projection, Sony 3D) or less out-of-phase ones (Technicolor 3D). This does affect the "3D-ness" a little, but we are talking here that all the systems that flicker are either the same (144hz for RealD/Dolby/Master Image/XpanD) or worse (HDTV at 120hz). Other systems don't flicker (dual projection/Imax/Sony/polarized TV's) or maintain both views in higher degree of phase (Technicolor 3D).
Ideally, when they all use the best possible filters/glasses/screens/lamps/etc, they all should offer low enough ghosting to be the same. But here, only Dolby 3D is close enough to perfection while the rest must live with some residual ghosting. This doesn't have to affect the 3D-ness at all, but being distracting and a nuisance they are all imperfect, including current 3D TV's, except for Dolby that is close to it (to perfection).
HDTV are *exactly* the same as a XpanD system but with usually a slower "flicker rate" of 120hz instead of 144hz (i.e. triple flash) and lower-than-that real screen-redraw times (i.e. residual image ghosting). No other difference in results from any other system.
Now, what happens, is that just like in 2D, 3D scales with the size of the screen and the intention of the cinematographer. If someone shoots a movie with (15/70) Imax in mind and then you watch it in a 32" TV, of course it's gonna "suck-ass". You were meant to see say a huge mountain 60' tall with a man standing in front 6' tall and you are seeing a 20" miniature mountain and a 2" faceless-doll in your TV set.
Same with 3D. If shot with an average theater-sized screen in mind, a shot may have been composed for the background showing a forest the size of the screen (say 40' by 24') at say 200 feet behind the screen, a dog aprox. 1' tall and 3' long at the screen plane with his nose sticking out 10", sort-of-like the real proportions of the animal, and then a frisbee in the foreground half-way between the viewer and the screen (i.e. if the viewer is sitting 30' away from the screen, the frisbee would be about 15' out of the screen).
Now we take this same scene and we show it on a 46" TV. Now, the forest becomes a 40" x 23" little forest, that is now only extending 20' behind the screen, the dog becomes a miniature 1"x3" dog which nose hardly sticks out 0.1" (virtually flat) from the screen, and the frisbee is now half-way between you and the 1/10th of the screen size, except that now you are sitting 10' away from it so the frisbee is only 0.5' out of the screen.
Everything, the width and height, but also now the depth in 3D is scaled down from a theater to a TV screen. The difference from the "wow" of an imax (2D or 3D) to the "ok" of a movie screen (2D or 3D) to the "phewww" of a 32" TV screen ... 2D or 3D.
Now, the 3D could be composed thinking of a much smaller screen (TV) instead of a massive movie theater one and thus make much better (and exagerated) use of it for a smaller screen. But for that, a different version of the movie must be photographed for TV (ideally, nowadays everything is "converted" and "twisted" by computers with various degrees of imperfect results).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-12-2010 01:54 PM
I don't understand the flicker rate issue. We have been watching movies our whole lives and the flicker rate has always been 48 "flickers" per second. Why now is 120 too slow?
As for why 3D didn't work in the past...simple. Technically it wasn't practical. In the 50s, dual projection was difficult to pull off. Even when they could pull it off there were severe limitations -- booths weren't designed from the ground up for 3D -- it was an add-on. Lenses weren't nearly as good as they are today and they weren't matched. Whatever lenses were in the booth for each projector -- those were the ones used for projecting 3D. Whereas a FL 3.75" might have been scribed on two lenses, that didn't mean they were EXACTLY the same magnification on the screen. The descrepancy would impact that "headache" factor you always hear about (although I must say I NEVER got a headache watching 3D movies as a kid -- I am guessing a lot of that perception is more legend than actuality).
In addition, there had to be an intermision in every movie because of the limitation of the 6000ft reel -- itself an "add on" that was designed specifically for 3D back then (those who were running Long Play reels can thank 3D for not having to make change-overs every 18min). The precision required to run 3D successfully in the 50s was notched up quite a bit higher and some projectionists were just not up to the task. Once film broke, the chore of conforming both left and right eye prints was super work-intensive, and you had to know what you were doing. Although when it was working properly, dual film projection 3D of the 50s had the same high quality presentation values as dual projection digital 3D of today (IMAX).
In short, in the 50s (the first real commercial 3D attempt) it was significantly more difficult in the projection booth to go from running 2D film to running 3D film than it is today going from 2D digital projection to 3D digital projection.
Also, the 3D films of the 50s for the most part were, to put it kindly, unsophistocated trash. You could count on two hands the number of really high quality 3D films produced by the studios back then that didn't exploit 3D to the detriment of the story, unlike today where there are some really fine 3D films in terms of intellegent, entertaining storylines, characters and plots; that is a monumental difference with a major impact.
Another factor that impacted 3D in the 50s was the introduction of CinemaScope, which was huge. With the ease of CinemaScope in terms of booth operation compared to dual projection 3D, the theatres dropped 3D faster than a speeding bullet; 3D was out, scope was definately in.
The second round of 3D in the 80s was even worse. And mostly the same issues -- the 3D was an add-on in the booth with little attention to whether the existing equipement could handle the demands of that over/under system. 9 times out of 10, it couldn't -- specifically the issue that the over/under process was an incredible light hog, and if the exhibitor didn't make serious adjustments to his light source, the image would be so underlit as to be nearly unwatchable. Combine that again with the TRASH movies that were produced in 3D and there are your two nails in the coffin for the 80s foray into 3D which was even shorter lived that the 50s venture.
However, both situations were very different than what is happening today. The digital 3D technology today is "easy" for booth operations and the presentation runs from OK to really excellent. But to reitterate Julio's excellent point, once you have a way to get the two images to your two eyes correctly separated, the "3D-ness" is there and it is identical, regardless of the other factors (how big the image is, how good the resolution is, how bright it is, etc.). The sense of depth comes from the disparity of the two photographed images, not the quality or lack thereof of the images themselves. Even in anaglyphic, as horrible as that is, the 3D, i.e., the feeling of depth between objects in space is the same as the original B&W dual projection version of the same film (IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE for example), or if it be 35mm or even the 16mm version and if Universal were to released it in 8mm anaglyphic (I think maybe they did), the 3D depth would be exactly the same; the depth is not dependent on the image quality but the disparity of the images.
And of course a significant difference today that was not there ever before is 3DTV and 3D BluRay making those 3D films available in the home; that is a HUGE difference. And it is not only 3DTV -- that is a done deal -- but the myriad of 3D personal displays like ipods and pads and phones....all of which will be 3D enabled. The SMPTE just this week is having a major conference in NYC on directions and standards to get 3D content across multiple platforms. The industry is not on the cusp of 3D dying out; these people are planning for a world-wide entertainment/communication system that is 3D enabled. 3D will be EVERYWHERE. That was not the case the other times around, so no, we are not doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. 3D is being done very differently today.
Personally, I think the fact that 3DTV will be ubiquitious in the home and almost as universal as 16:9 screens (can you buy a 4:3 TV set anymore?) that it will force 3D product coming from the studios and will keep 3D alive in perpetuity, unlike in the past. Directors will use it as commonly as they do scope -- just another tool they can choose to tell a story. Very soon we will stop asking if that movie really "needed" to be made in 3D. Does anyone ask if a movie "needed" to be made in scope or in color?
Will home viewers want to wear "goggles" to watch tv? Certainly younger generations who are brought up with them will have no problem -- these kids watch 3D video games with 3D glasses as readily as they watch without. Those who can't abide the glasses can just watch in 2D -- who cares -- but the 3D will be there and if the sets can show 3D, you can bet advertisers will be tripping over themselves to make their commercials in 3D. There is just a lot more driving 3D this time around than in the past. A hellofalot more.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic