Special 3-D TV Production online Q&A - post your questions now

[David Metzler]

Now through June 30th this thread will be monitored by special guests from the recent '3-D Television - The Revolution Begins' panel and demo presented by The Caucus and Emerson College at the 3ality Digital studios.

You can addresss your questions to the group or to any of the individuals partcipating (see below).

June 30th 5 pm will mark the close of the discussion, so ask away and please welcome our guests:


• Phil Lelyveld - Entertainment Technology Strategy Advisor, USC
• Sanford R. Climan - CEO, 3ality Digital
• Ray Hannisian - Stereographer
• Robert Duncan McNeill - Co-Executive Producer, Director, "Chuck" Comedy Series
• Ted Kenney - Head of Production, 3ality Digital
• Eisuke Tsuyuzaki - VP Corp. Development & GM, Panasonic R&D

[Tony Cammarata]

Question for RAY:

During the panel discussion, it was mentioned that longer takes are preferable because the eye has more information to register.

This made me think about action sequences, music videos, and commercials that use rapid editing techniques with some shots lasting one second or less.

My thought is that a director would need to plan for possible problems, if fast cutting is necessary for a 3D project/scene/sequence, etc.


My questions are:

1. Is there an appropriate amount of time that the eye needs to register 3D?

2. Do you think rapid editing (one second or less) will not work well in 3D?

Thank you!

[PhilLelyveld]

1. Is there an appropriate amount of time that the eye needs to register 3D?

According to vision science research, the amount of time it takes a person's eyes to adjust to clearly perceive a 3D image is a function of the flexibility of their eyes, and that is often correlated with age. The older you get, the less flexible your eyes are. That can actually be a good thing when watching 3D content.

Your eyes converge on the 3D 'object' based on the displacement of the left eye / right eye images on the screen. As your eyes converge on the left eye / right eye images, your brain sends instructions to your eyes to focus as if there were actually a real object at that distance. But the left eye / right eye images are in focus ON the screen, not where your brain thinks the object. When your brain realizes it has made a mistake, it does a 'manual override' to bring the 3D virtual object in focus. (This all happens without you knowing or thinking about it.) Since less flexible eyes react slower than flexible eyes, the brain has less 'rebounding' to do.

2. Do you think rapid editing (one second or less) will not work well in 3D?

If you are fast cutting and maintaining a similar depth budget for your primary and background objects, I'm speculating that there wouldn't be a problem because it isn't the fast cuts, but rapid changes in the depth budget that is the issue.

My responses are based on recent conversations with University-based vision science researchers. I'd like to hear what Ray has to say on these matters, based on hands-on experience.

[Greg Strangis]

More on the subject from CBS News online:

The rise of 3-D technology for movies and television will force a change in how directors tell stories.

Say goodbye to gut-wrenching drops off cliffs and swoops through asteroid fields to call attention to 3-D effects. Be prepared for directors to use slower pans, less cutting, and more deliberate camera moves to blend the technology into the story. These new 3-D movies may look boring in 3-D, but they'll end up feeling more engaging when seen in three dimensions.

Think 3-D is a gimmick and that professional cinematographers and television directors don't take it seriously? Financials dispute this. 3-D films in 3-D theaters gross two to five times what the 3-D versions of those films do, according to people in the 3-D business, like Sandy Climan, CEO of 3ality. Commercials in 3-D also yield better recall rates. And it's not just the novelty factor. If so, the trend would have faded. Grosses for 3-D films are growing.




Read the rest of the article here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/18/tech/real_technology/main5096253.shtml).

[David Metzler]

Here's an article from Engadget announcing new consumer 3-D projectors - does this mean we could watch U2 3-D at home, or is it a different technology:

Good news, 3D fanboys and girls, looks like Viewsonic's back on the scene with a clutch of 120Hz 3D-enabled projectors. The first new model, the PJD6381, looks to be aimed at schools and businesses, with an extremely short throw ratios (around .68) for reducing shadowing effects, and a number of interactive whiteboard options. Available in August, this guy has 1024 x 768 XGA resolution, 2,500 ANSI lumens, a 2,500:1 contrast ratio, 120Hz refresh rate, and is compatible with the both Texas Instruments' DLP Link and NVIDIA's 3D-Vision 3D technology -- expect it to have an MSRP of $1,249. The PJD6211 and PJD6221 ($849 and $899, respectively) also sport 1024 x 768 XGA resolution, as well as up to 2,700 lumens, a 2,800:1 contrast ratio and both DLP Link and 3D-Vision compatibility. These two should hit the stores some time in July.

from
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/15/viewsonic-announces-three-new-3d-projectors