basically I think they're using polarizing lenses in the theaters, and just polarizing the light from both projectors, that are pointing to the same location and then it runs 2 separate film strips for each eye and they saparate as necessary, I really like the new 3D. Don't know why it wasn't done this way before.

Dave

So your 3D vision depends on camera movement instead, assembling a 3D perception in your brain from a 2D image.

(I got blind in one eye 8 years ago, then lost the other eye too. Four of L.A.'s top eye surgeons, including at the Jules Stein Eye Institute in Westwood, said it was incurable. Fortunately, being born with a slightly stubborn mind, I went to a fifth eye specialist who said, "Hmmm, I'm not sure, but I think I can fix this." Don't know if this applies to you, but I have learned over time that MDs are humans, too.)

Polarized light has always been used in cinema 3D systems. Red and Blue/Cyan has only ever been used for TV and print 3D images.

3D is a pointless gimmick that is always wheeled out when the industry is in trouble. I am aways amazed that people just don't look at 3D films and say "well that is obviously rubbish". It is impossible to create a realistic 3D image with current image capture systems as they all rely on having two cameras recording in stereo. The problem is that you can only capture from one fixed position looking straight forwards, and that it not how human eyes or depth perception work. for example, if you look at something that is to your left, part of the depth perception is because your right eye is physically further behind the object. 3D cameras are alway set on the same plane. If you could vary it, it still would not work, because you eyes need to move freely to give the correct perception.

People who have worked in 3D will know that you actually have to fiddle about with the relative positions of the cameras in software (or in the lab) to exaggerate the 3D impression, otherwise it will just look like a big mess. The only realistic 3D rendering I have seen of any image are in photographic holograms, which recreates many fields of vision. Even then they have some considerable limitations.

But all this talk about 3D TVs is absolute non-sense. As far as I can see, the "new" systems just use the rather antiquated system of syncing out of phase strobing filters in glasses. This approach is expensive, pointless and likely to cause a headache. I can't see the new anaglyph system being much better either.

On the other hand ....

don't overlook the fun factor. People like going to see a 3D movie. It has an appeal that's still strong. I understand all the technical limitations and the poor quality imaging involved. I still have fun seeing a 3D movie. Then again, i hardly ever saw them as a kid so the novelty factor is still stronger for me.

Then again again ... maybe people are just morons and enjoy it anyway. You have to admit that many other "worthless" gimmicks sell quite well!

"Red and Blue/Cyan has only ever been used for TV and print 3D images."

Not entirely true. A pleasing and rather convincing 3D effect can be obtained using the "Pulfrich Effect." It involves using a neutral density filter over one eye, this can be accomplished by breaking one lens out of an old pair of grey-tinted sunglasses or just hold a pair sideways so that the lens covers one eye. Since it works best with video with a lot of lateral movement, I use it for watching automobile races on TV and it works quite well. No encoding of the video is necessary. Try it, it's fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect

I am aware of the Pulfrich effect. The Children in Need Dr Who special 'Dimensions in Time' was shot with consideration for it. And it is even more pointless.

Another reason that 3D content generated with cameras does not work is because depth perception in film print is dictated by the focus of the image. That along with the fact that the camera can not mimic the varying plane of vision between two eyes means that all such 3D content is a pointless gimmick.

If it sells tickets, it works.

That's the definition.

I merely mentioned the Pulfrich Effect as a fun thing someone can try at home for no cost whatsoever. It does add a sense of depth.

I have been involved with some stereo vision technology at Los Alamos Labs which uses an array of 48 Silicon Imaging 2k cameras generating almost 10GB of data per second and all processed, in real-time, by a supercomputer and projected inside a sphere by a bunch of 4k projectors. It uses high-speed LCD shutter glasses and head position detection, among other things. The effect is as close to "being there" as I have ever experienced. One of the goals is to commercialize it for use in museums to take people places they could not otherwise go.

The research is not "pointless" and it most certainly is not a "gimmick." According to you, we are stuck with 2D video and film forever.

Or course it is a pointless gimmick. Unless your cameras are shooting with no depth of field (i.e. everything is in complete focus) then there is no point. Focus is the cameraman's key tool for controlling depth perception. For that reason all current systems of real life 3D filming will look confusing. And if you do find a way to keep everything constantly in focus your film is instantly going to lose one of the fundamental tools of the trade. You can not mix stereoscopic photography and focused images, simple as that.

And you still can't account for eye movement, where the eyes are actually looking in the frame! It is a complete waste of time. The fact is that 3D systems have remained unchanged ever since they were first implemented. The only thing that changes is the film stock format, or whatever the delivery format is.

The fact is that it is entirely pointless. If 3D was anything more than a gimmick it would have become the standard at some point in the last 50 years. That is 50 years during which 625 lines, colour, widescreen ratios, home video, stereo sound, surround sound, dolby noise reduction, satellite television, cable television, digital television, flatscreen LCD and Plasma televisions have established themselves in the marketplace. If anyone was genuinely interested in 3D in any way other than it being a gimmick, it would be an established standard by now.

Any time the industry is in feeling worried, and they are not sure what the "next big thing" is, they wheel out 3D again. This time it is particularly appealing to many studios as they are retroactively making high earning films 3D, and thus probably hoping to recycle their back catalog for better margins in harder economic climates. But no serious producer should be thinking about working in 3D and I personally find it hard to see an en-masse shift from conventional "2D" screen formats at any time in the next 20 years.

"And you still can't account for eye movement, where the eyes are actually looking in the frame! "

Actually, you can and the Los Alamos project takes that into consideration.

I get it, you hate all 3D. I think you're wrong on pretty much every point, but I will discuss it no further. Good day, sir.

This reminds me of my university freshman year when I asked a professor, "What's the difference between an engineer and a scientist?"

He said, "Posit a room with a gorgeous woman in the center of the room. Your goal is to reach this gorgeous woman, but she emits a male-repulsive field with a strength that varies as F= 1/r2.

The scientist takes a quick look at that and says, "Hmmm, that means that the repulsive force goes to infinity as I get closer to her. This is impossible."

The engineer says, "Hmmm. I bet I can get close enough...."

Same thing with 3D film/video.

It doesn't have to be perfect to be attractive.

No, I would like 3D to work. I think it is an interesting idea. I have even built my own 3d camera to fully explore the ups and downs of the format. The logical conclusion is that it is a gimmick. Like I said, if anybody really cared about it, every single film would be made in 3D by now. But they are not, so it is obviously pointless.

Hey, my wife and I went the the Rockette's Christmas show at Radio City this year. They had a 3D episode of Santa flying thru the city, and it was REMARKABLE. The glasses looked like a lightly tinted yellow lens. I had to look around the glasses at one point to see what was really going on, and it was indeed just a plain video on the screen. We were in the 3rd mezzanine, and even from there my wife literally reached out to try to touch some of the action. NEVER have we seen 3D this good. They've come a long way.

I think that 3D movies would become very popular if they could do away with the required hardware (i.e. special glasses)
If they could generate a 3D effect without them, 3D will become mainstream, until then I would agree it is only a gimmick....

Well I really enjoyed the old 35 mm slide 3D viewers with the round picture inserts. I thought they were outstanding. In the 50's I also enjoyed the 3D movies as long as they were set up correctly. The arrows coming at me made me slide way down in the seat and the Three Stooges short with the huge hypodermic needle coming at me resulted in removal of the glasses. I really didn't think it was a gimmick. I don't think Canon did either with that $8000.00 3D lens for the XL-1s.
JJK

I hope they filled out an Environmental Impact Report on those 150 million 3D glasses

CD,
I used to think you and I disagreed on everything.
Steve

Hey, I even agreed with apit on several things recently.

Please don't tell him, he may think I've gone soft.

:O)

I think CD just "Blink" me! ;-)

"(I got blind in one eye 8 years ago, then lost the other eye too. Four of L.A.'s top eye surgeons, including at the Jules Stein Eye Institute in Westwood, said it was incurable. Fortunately, being born with a slightly stubborn mind, I went to a fifth eye specialist who said, "Hmmm, I'm not sure, but I think I can fix this." Don't know if this applies to you, but I have learned over time that MDs are humans, too.)" Would you just post on the forum when you are going "flying"! ;-) If you are going under the knife, may the best results be on the outcome! And this may explain your "strange love" to/for FCP. ;-)