• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Ideal 3D: Obvious or Subtle?

S

strat1227

Well-Known Member
I've been watching lots of 3D stuff these past few days (Avatar, Tron, Alice in Wonderland, some Nat Geo documentaries, etc), and I find myself "forgetting" that it's 3D. Basically about 15 minutes into a 2 hour movie I stop noticing the 3D.

I honestly can't decide if that's good or bad though! On one hand, you'd think ideal 3d would really wow you and you'd really really be able to tell the difference between that and just another video. On the other hand, not noticing means that they integrate it perfectly.

Really short videos still wow me and I never "forget" it's 3d, but if I sit down to watch a full-length movie, after a while I actually make myself leave the 3d viewing angle for a few seconds just so I can return back and everything will "pop" again.

What do you guys think? Does 3d that you forget you're watching mean that it's perfect? Or does that mean it's A: not as big a deal as everyone makes it if you can't even tell the difference when watching a movie, or B: not fully developed or ideal yet, and when it is it REALLY will wow people and it'll be like night and day?
 
It should be obvious. Stuff should be flying out the screen into your face. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't forget that.
 
That's definitely a valid position, but for the sake of argument the Evo 4g did that just fine, making the 3d stuff seemingly a waste of cost they could have used making other hardware better

I'm definitely conflicted on this lol
 
3D film making is an ever refinement of artistic choice. More and more, movie makers realize that stuff popping out for the sake of popping out and wowing the audience is gimmicky. The art of 3D is evolving toward a more natural depiction of a scene's depth. The screen is treated more like a window into a 3D world, where some things occasionally come through the window frame, but usually has no business doing so.
 
novox is directly on point here.

many people who will jump on this handset expect it to be like the 80s movies in 3D and that's not the focus anymore. i will not go on and repeat the excellent post the 'Vox :D just posted however i will say in today's 3D market this is where the move is going.

i also shoot with 3D cameras for major movie and TV production houses and 100% of the stuff ive shot involves exactly what the 'Vox talks about. Depth... Depth...
 
Right I understand it's not supposed to actually jump out at you (I think coolio's post was a joke)

From what you guys are saying, it sounds like choice B in my original post (not fully ideal/developed yet) because if they had it perfectly such that it really was just like looking through a window or a mirror, I have to assume that would be extremely obvious the whole time, it wouldn't feel like just watching another normal movie, it'd be very surreal
 
this is cutting edge tech so yea its far from perfect. the tech will mature and so will the results you and I will see.

as an aside (wanted to use that phrase :D), the early stereoscopic rigs i used to fly on my Steadicam were so clunky and heavy..they were bastardized designs... now there are lighter rigs with carbon fiber material and the design is more modular.. and this has happened in less than a year. so im sure there are already advances in this screen technology we may see in the next gen handset...
 
strat1227 said:
From what you guys are saying, it sounds like choice B in my original post (not fully ideal/developed yet) because if they had it perfectly such that it really was just like looking through a window or a mirror, I have to assume that would be extremely obvious the whole time, it wouldn't feel like just watching another normal movie, it'd be very surreal
Click to expand...

You acknowledged my earlier reply, but that statement indicates I was not clear in my meaning.

Is color perfected? (Yep, pretty much.)

Do people sit around and marvel at color? (Nope, not much.)

Is it extremely obvious the whole time? (Nope, not really - it's just part of the story-telling. You might have movies like Sin City or Frieda that exploit color and it grabs you at first - but soon thereafter, it's just part of the storytelling.)

Now - substitute 3D in my examples for color and we arrive at your questions and premise - does it now still seem reasonable?

strat1227 said:
That's definitely a valid position, but for the sake of argument the Evo 4g did that just fine, making the 3d stuff seemingly a waste of cost they could have used making other hardware better

I'm definitely conflicted on this lol
Click to expand...

OK - please explain how Good Night and Good Luck, The Maltese Falcon, or Psycho would have been better in color.

I would not only submit, I'd insist that having those in color would completely detract from the story-telling - nothing serves drama and dramatic focus like black and white with good lighting.

Nothing serves the mass market like color - I have family members who won't sit through those shows because they're all old-timey.

Again - substitute 3D, what can it offer?

Realism? I'll never believe that - books are written on the subject of realism and its role in movies. My favorite was all of the new fans trying to explain to me, and not understanding the look on my face at all, as I cared little about Avatar in 3D - because I was missing the point of how real it made it look. Avatar. Real. Ummm. OK.

3D, in my opinion, is offering dramatic focus - a return to black and white by other means. This is supported by the Avatar-era articles on how to avoid the 3D headache (even though that was not the articles' intention). Sample here, and please note it well -

How to avoid getting a 3D headache while watching Avatar - Shadowlocked

So long as you're served movies where the 3D is totally noticeable - and on your mind - throughout the whole affair, you're being being served bad movies.

This hypothetical conversation predicts my point:

Hey, I saw this movie, the 3D just popped the whole way through! The color was incredible! The surround sound was completely visceral at all times, my seat shaking, I could feel the sound effects in my chest!

Yeah - I saw it, too. What was the part about the district attorney's lover? How did they tie that to the gun runners?

Uhhhh... uhhhhh... Oh, yeah, I remember seeing her in that neglige - it's like I was in the room with her! The 3D popped!

Yeah - what was that guy saying to her?

Uhhhh.... uhhhhh....

Hope that clarifies my position - any tech that that makes me forget about it (or should I have said, not remembered it first?) and just enjoy the show is doing its job.

PS - When was the last time you left a movie theater and said, Thank goodness that 2D experience is all over now? Never? OK, then why do you want to leave the theater and say: Wow! 3D is really perfected now! I couldn't forget the 3D the whole time!
 
I do have to agree that after 30 min into a movie you forget you're watching 3d on the phone. The same goes if I were to watch at the theater. Eventually I don't realize I'm looking through 3d glasses and that I'm watching 3d. But I still watch in 3d as much as I could in theaters in particular sci-fi, action, or animation. I would do the same on our phones and I think it's worth it for me. I do have some 2d still on my sd card and its so bleh now when I watch them again.
 
EarlyMon said:
You acknowledged my earlier reply, but that statement indicates I was not clear in my meaning.

Is color perfected? (Yep, pretty much.)

Do people sit around and marvel at color? (Nope, not much.)

Is it extremely obvious the whole time? (Nope, not really - it's just part of the story-telling. You might have movies like Sin City or Frieda that exploit color and it grabs you at first - but soon thereafter, it's just part of the storytelling.)

Now - substitute 3D in my examples for color and we arrive at your questions and premise - does it now still seem reasonable?
Click to expand...

Of course it is! Maybe it won't be in 40 years after we're all perfectly accustomed to it, but do you think when The Wizard of Oz came out for the first time people "forgot" that it was in color after 15 minutes? Of course not!

As you made the original analogy, the same logic applies to this.

I think I'm closer to marc's point that it's really good but still obviously far from perfect.

Everything in your post seems to just be due to the fact that it's new technology. People won't have that conversation in 5 years, even if the technology doesn't advance. Nobody walks around saying "Man, that movie was so cool because it's in color!!!" Eventually the novelty fades into the background, that doesn't have anything to do with the technology itself.
 
strat1227 said:
Eventually the novelty fades into the background, that doesn't have anything to do with the technology itself.
Click to expand...

OK - so, and I think I've read you correctly:

1. Novelty fades into the background as a course of nature, and has nothing to do with the technology itself.

2. For you, the novelty has faded into the background, and this is due to the technology (not being perfected).

Not poking at you or anything disrespectful - but I am really having trouble seeing how to deconflict that.

I'm probably missing something really fundamental, otherwise, the only deconfliction to that is my point.

marctronixx acknowledged and explained professionally that the tech is imperfect. Ok. Still doesn't negate my point or deconflict yours.

BTW - hope you caught the second part of my earlier post - it was part of the question. I'll trust you did.
 
EarlyMon said:
1. Novelty fades into the background as a course of nature, and has nothing to do with the technology itself.

2. For you, the novelty has faded into the background, and this is due to the technology (not being perfected).
Click to expand...

The reason those don't conflict is the cause of each statement:

1. Perfected technology stops being novel eventually (we don't marvel at color tvs or the existence of cell phones anymore). HOWEVER, these perfected technologies are marveled at when they first come out (Wizard of Oz or the invention of the cell phone, nobody watched Wizard of Oz and forgot it was color, or used a cell phone and forgot it was wireless)

2. 3d faded into the background WITHIN 15 MINUTES of viewing it! This means that although the concept of 3d is on par with the introduction of color films, the effect isn't anywhere near as strong.

So a few explanations could be A: 3d isn't as big of a revolution as color is (although I would think it would be), B: 3d isn't perfect (it's not as different from 2d as color was from B/W) or maybe C: I'm just crazy lol

I'm definitely not arguing with anyone's points about the artistic use of 3d, my only point is that for some reason it's not very revolutionary (meaning watching a 3d movie doesn't seem very different from watching a 2d movie; unlike color vs B/W), and I'm wondering why that is

Hope that clears up my position some :)
 
I just finished watching "How to Train Your Dragon 3D." There were many parts of the movie where I was too engrossed in the movie's storytelling that I forgot about the 3D. But there were plenty of chances in the movie where the presentation of scenery was beautifully done, and the 3D aspect popped right back into the forefront. I definitely noticed. To me, that is very tasteful. Avatar was the same way. The 3D really came into focus during scenery presentation. The 3D should never be at the forefront of attention the entire time.

3D is how we view the world naturally. Therefore it stands to reason that if depth is reproduced faithfully, by definition it is not as noticeable because that is how we see things. We don't look at the car coming down the street and think, wow, look how that car really pops out at me!

A car that pops out at you from a screen is different because it doesn't seem possible that a car SHOULD pop out at you from a screen. While people marveled that we could perceive something that seemed to defy possibility, it got old pretty quickly. That's why most modern 3D is moving past the old gimmicks and using depth as just another "dimension" of presenting a visual story. If you're starting to tune out the 3D, then someone is doing their job right. This is how 3D media will become widely accepted and shed it's "gimmicky" label. How can something natural be considered a gimmick?
 
strat1227 said:
The reason those don't conflict is the cause of each statement:

2. 3d faded into the background WITHIN 15 MINUTES of viewing it! This means that although the concept of 3d is on par with the introduction of color films, the effect isn't anywhere near as strong.
Click to expand...

Ok, we're going to agree to disagree because you're living in a different relative inertial space-time frame from me.

1. 3D's fifteen minutes that I'm aware of included making Avatar the big hit of its day, completely changed the consumer HDTV and theater landscape for the better part of 2010, and 18 months later is manifesting in glasses-free 3D personal electronics.

2. No one I spoke with that viewed Avatar at its release ever once said that it faded into the background after 15 minutes - and saying anything on the net against Avatar's 3D back then got you flamed until your asbestos boxer shorts were toast. It was 3D magic for every second according to its acolytes.

(Contrary to popular belief) I wasn't alive when the Wizard of Oz hit, but if they'd had an internet, I'll bet the fossil records would agree with Avatar.

That it hasn't caught on is - in my opinion - based on several things:


  • lots of crappy 2D to 3D conversions (overshadowing for the masses movies where it was done right - people have short memories)
  • lots of crappy 3D TV solutions (overshadowing for the masses HDTVs where it was done right - people have no patience understanding tech and believe marketing)
  • those two combined with the gimmick fear overcome perception

Perception is just as much expectation as your eyes.

Maybe about two years ago, CNET took their top 10 TVs, set them into an array - bezels all masked - darkened the room and provided theater seating for their entire HDTV viewing staff. It was quite the comedy, I laughed for days. The reviewers had all rated those sets previously. Of the about 10 reviewers, only the top-most tech guy and the least-most tech gal consistently picked out which models were which and were able to re-state attributes identically based on their previous reviews. The rest were not even close. LCD lovers were picking plasmas, plasma lovers were picking LCDs, and the group that was wrong, was all wrong.

Scientifically, the CNET article caved to staff and agreed that the test was somehow unscientific. The top tech guy was allowed to post a short rebuttal and the low tech gal just laughed at them - being a gal and low tech, all but the high tech guy that got it right, all marginalized her opinions.

We all like to believe that our senses don't lie. They do. They're contaminated by ideas. I have my contamination, you have yours. It's why enjoying a magician up close and in person can be so much fun.

So - maybe that 15 minutes you're experiencing indicates something.

Or - I'm just all wrong here. Truthfully, I'm often wrong.

PS - Don't know if you're old enough, but when I was young, they showed the history of tech doubling in capability and predicted that based on that curve, the day would come when tech doubled every year. We're long past that prediction point.

Going to your point A: it's not revolutionary. Maybe. It's been out for years. It's been evolving. So, it's not new. Or maybe we're just all numb from the speed of tech advances and we're conditioned to reject after 15 minutes. That's just one possible example of what I mean by contamination.
 
strat1227 said:
I just want to say that as a physicist I'm willing to concede the debate to you just for this comment alone :D
Click to expand...

To think of the time I've spent on monographs for the APS - when all I had to do was publish was on 3vo! :o :D

So. Did you hear the one about - Atoms in 3D | Physical Review Focus

Save the jpg on that page changing .jpg to .jps, drop into /sdcard/Sample 3D Pictures - or just rename in /sdcard/download if you grab from the phone - launch Gallery, enjoy. (Sorry it's not bigger. I enlarged it to 540 pixel height/256 ppi to fit the phone resolution, but that seemed like a step backwards as I think that made it shear. I think I'd have to move so far back from the screen so as to gain no advantage in apparent size.)

Photoelectron diffraction equipment to take photos: ~$423.5 million

HTC Evo 3D: $200 on contract

Using high-energy physics to give 3D a good 16 minutes on an Android internet forum: Priceless
pic-v7-st10-1.jpg


(Yeah - budgeted cost of NSLS-II, Brookhaven Nat'l Lab.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom