| Author | Message | ||
     keatsy Rating: N/A |
Hi all im doing a research paper for uni and wanted to know the publics ideas on what the future holds for stereoscopy... ..3dtv? more 3d cinematics? social implications? obviously, you can buy 3d lcd displays now and theres some new spinning plate technology (eg. Actuality Systems) but what about futristic systems like projecting two images onto the retina? any thoughts? will there be some public embrace of stereoscopic technology in the future, or will it flop ala the nintendo virtual boy? ?? | ||
| vanderwal Rating: N/A |
I don't think the mass public will buy into any new 3D technology. Most people think of stereoscopy as a gimmick. Just look at all the virtual reality hype of the 90's and see where VR is now. Dead. That's just my 2 bobs. | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
I belive personaly (and professionaly) in following future: New 3D cinams will be digital. They will be able to show both 2D movies and 3D movies by active projection. Price accptable shuteglasses will come together with this new boom of 3D movies .... 1 chip DLP projetors like InFocus DepthQ will be more price accptable. Everybody will have a DLP projector able to work in both 3D and 2D mode ... A lot of old 2D movies will be 3D converted. This proces will be semi manual ... The new HD DVD format will have enought space for stereoscopic movies storage in enought good quality ... This is all I can tell without beeing with violation with the NDA's I had signed ... Let me know if you have more questions ... | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
The sad truth is that 3D will probably NEVER become the expected standard for mass media (movies and televsion programs), the way that first sound and then color became standard for motion pictures. There are several reasons for this: 1. The fascination with 3D that those of us in these forums share puts us -- let's be honest -- in a very small niche group within the mass media market. 99% of our countrymen simply aren't interested in constant exposure to 3D, and never will be, no matter how it's marketed. They consider it at best a gimmick to be enjoyed once in a while. 2. The movie critics who scoffed that 3D was inappropriate for "serious" movies were half-right: The effect is great for action movies ("House of Wax"), but an expensive waste of time for character movies ("Miss Sadie Thompson"), because most of the time the audience is ignoring the 3D to concentrate on the actors and plot, and when a rare "in your face" scene occurs, it grabs all your attention and actually distracts from the storyline. 3. The addition of sound and then color put no additonal requirements on the audience, so acceptance was purely passive. By contrast, it will be YEARS before a 3D viewing system for a theater-wide audience that doesn't need glasses is developed. As long as glasses are required, most people will refuse to use them except on an occasional basis. M.H. is no doubt accurate in most of his predictions in the preceding post, but while these technological advances will be very welcome to the niche market of 3D enthusiasts, and may even have the potential to create a temporary mass-market 3D fad (as occurred in 1953 and 1983), they won't make 3D the new permanent standard for mainstream movies and television. That was a hopeful but unattainable dream back in the Fifties and Eighties -- and still is. | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
Just my comment to Charles point 3. ... I am afraid it will be not years, but much more before a good glasses free system will exist ... I had seen a lot of theoreticals sudies about all possibel principles (including e.g. ultrasonic produced change in air structure) ... Nothing prommsing :-( ... The only thing with can be close are autosteresocpic monitor derived from e.g. 6000x4000 diplays, but they are limited by the microlens quality again (it is hard to produce microlenses with all optical corrections) ... But in this time you will have at home already IMAX (but with glasses, probably super elegant light weighted) | ||
| T Rating: N/A |
IMO, one of the great barriers to stereoscopy going mainstream relates to "accommodation". Humans perceive 3D in a number of ways, but two of the most important are inextricably intertwined: binocular vision (different perspectives of two eyes) AND changing of the eyes' focal length based on distance. Our eyes are trained from a very early age to combine convergence (turning the eyes inward based on distance) and focus changes, also based on distance. We're so habituated, that its unnatural to do one and not the other. Hence, 3D displays which rely on convergence, but do not allow the eyes to simultaneously change focus do a poor job of simulating depth, and become increasingly tiresome during extended viewing. To my knowledge, there is no practical 3D display system combining both. The average American TV set is on more than 7 hours a day. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who watches 7+ hours of stereoscopic material on a daily basis. Perhaps the focus-convergence link can be broken! | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
T: I agree with the accomodation problem fully. But this problem does no occure during projection - if you are more than 2 m from the screen the accomodation effect starts to disaper (this is why IMAX works O.K.) ... Another reason why I belive in projection systems and light weight glasses ... | ||
| keatsy Rating: N/A |
This is starting to become an interesting discussion. I never thought of the focus-convergence link being an issue. A lecturer of mine was telling me about a way around this with the hyperthetical retinal projections. I am skeptical about the practicalities of this stereoscopic technique... | ||
| keatsy Rating: N/A |
has anyone seen 'minority report'? the detectives in this movie use some futuristic photoshop software. the displays they use seem to just float before them, like a mass array of photons, while they interact with images on the display. will these sort of display devices be possible? it would definately work with a projection system...but tom cruise had no glasses... can you guys forsee surgeons operating 'virtually' in stereo? | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
Actually, the focus-convergence dichotomy does occur with stereoscopic projection systems as well as with monitors. It's present with ALL current stereoscopic viewing methods, because in all cases the focal plane is fixed while the degree of convergence constantly changes. With a projector, the focal plane is set for distant vision (eyes normally looking straight ahead), while with a monitor the focal plane is at near vision (eyes normally crossed to varying degrees), but in both cases the same principle applies. This is why most adults start to feel eye strain after sitting through 90 minutes of a 3-D movie with frequent "in your face" effects. I'm not familiar with retinal projection conceptions, but the problem should still be present: The brain expects the eyes to converge for near images and to look straight ahead for far images, and will eventually detect strain in the eye muscles if ths doesn't happen. Movies like "Minority Report" should be considered science fiction -- entertaining fantasy, but completely irrevelant to a realistic discussion of current or near future 3-D technology. | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
"I'd be interested to hear from anyone who watches 7+ hours of stereoscopic material on a daily basis." ===== Over the years lots of animators have used our stereo workstations -- most of which use 15' diagonal projection screens -- for their entire day. During normal periods this is roughly six hours a day, 4-5 days a week. However, as productions reach their peak, it can get to six or seven 12-hour days a week. In general, eyestrain is not one of the ergonomic problems they complain about. We get far more comments about the specialized chairs, the lack of light, the air quality, background noise, etc. | ||
| T Rating: N/A |
M.H. - I think the focus-convergence problem still exists with longer viewing distances, i.e. projection systems. With these systems, the focus distance is constant and close to infinity, but the eyes can be asked to converge at near distances, breaking the visual system's training. Projected stereoscopy often "appears" better because the films have bigger budgets, higher production values, experienced stereoscopic Directors' of Photography, and, most important, very small convergence angles (credit the DPs for this). Although the small angles do not mimic reality, there's still enough to give a 3D effect, while not asking the viewer to focus much closer than infinity. Alatar - Indeed, I'd love to know more about animators using 15 foot stereo projection screens as their primary daily workstation. Virtually all of the animators I know are lucky if they get a 5 foot cubicle and a fist full of free shrimp at Siggraph parties. | ||
| M.H. Rating: N/A |
T: Correct ... But if the out of screen effect is reduced (e.g. the object in IMAX stops 3-4 meters in front of the observer, not 1-2 m) the accomodation problem is neglible ... The same movie looking very bad and producing eyestrain on monitor looks perfect when projected. It is all about good balance betwen fiziologic limits and good 3D efect ... | ||
| Alatar Rating: N/A |
I've written quite a bit about them on this board in the last couple of years. I don't know if the board supports a search by author. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions if I can. | ||
| Johan Rating: N/A |
=>Keatsy, Maybe this could be something for the future within stereoscopics? http://www.sensegraphics.se/products_immersive.html SenseGraphics just released an Immersive Workbench called 3D-LIW, based on the "new" DLP 3D stereo projector from depthq. Combined with haptics this product is targeting medical visualization, medical surgery, industrial virtual assembly etcetera.. Regards Johan | ||
| MD Rating: N/A |
http://www.sensegraphics.se/products_immersive.html See this crap? -> A clumsy device that needs eyeglasses? No. ..This way 3d will NEVER go mainstream! I'm also at the point that mainstream 3d would really requrie multiview autostereo displays like x3d, stereographics etc. but with a far higher resolution, like the upcoming HDTV. Counting the minimum resolution of HDTV, 720p (1280*720) a 24-view autostereo display then would need a 22Megapixels panel to deliver 720p HDTV in Multiview-stereo.. Thats far away I think, but UHDTV (7680*4320, 33Megapixel) is on the way! | ||
| Johan Rating: N/A |
=>MD I dont thnk that little cappy "clumsy device" is meant to be placed in your bedroom as a real mainstream product*. However, someone has start somewhere... ;-) Regards Johan *altough there are many possibly mainstream bedroom applications where you can touch and feel things in real 3D. ;-) |
