| Author | Message | ||
     Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) New member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
I don't know how many of you have heard of Darbeevison. It's a relatively new technique. It isn't 'true 3D' for all the purest, but it does put 3D info the picture in a way the viewer can see it. There are samples at www.darbeevision.com, and details at http://www.darbeevision.com/factsheet.php. What is interesting is that it has been somewhat embraced by producers, probably because John Darbee has something of a track record of things that 'worked' like the universal remote. Back to 3D; the technique involves taking one half of a stereo pair, defocusing it, and subtracting it from the other image. The result can be viewed or printed. It's been done to films too. No, it's NOT real 3D, but it is interesting. I don't think it's very computer intensive either. You can google it online and read more. I wonder how soon I can get the plug-in for one of my photo programs. Larry Elie | ||
| Charles Arrants (Charles) Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 30 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
I've taken a close look at the converted "Darbeevision" images on the website, and I don't see any additional depth cues AT ALL in the modified photographs. The only visible difference is a very slight increase in textural detail (and while textural gradients can be a non-stereoscopic depth cue in some images, they add no sense of depth in these specific photographs). I understand the technical explanation of the Darbeevision process, but its claim of adding visible depth cues doesn't appear to be true -- at least not in the sample images on its website. If I'm missing something here, please tell me what it is. | ||
| Scott Warren (Scott_warren) New member Username: Scott_warren Post Number: 19 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
Snake Oil. Remember the phrase, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"? Things like this, Pulfrich,etc. pull the attention of JoeSchmoes away from what is REALLY interesting--true stereo3D. Then, because it doesn't correspond to reality, they become disillusioned--with both those techniques AND true stereo3D. We (certainly I) don't need or want stuff like that at this crucial point in Stereo3D history. I can convince myself to live with Dimensionalized (through painstaking hand+computer work) 2D->3D, but this??? Nope. I've got more important true stereo3D things to hope for... Scott | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) New member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
You guys are thinking too hard. It's not 3D. Never was. Never will be. Think of it as another mask filter, but with some 3D info in it. Not only that but it's cheap. To me it looks like a contrasty picture with some edge detection. But all he claims is that it started with 3D info. I have NOT seen one of his "2.9D" photos, so I have NO IDEA what they look like. But what he does have is something with snap. Advertisers love contrast and saturation, so they will love this. I'm told it looks great on the big screen but I have yet to see it that way. But don't believe me, Google darbeevision, and read what the directors and producers are saying about it. Festivals are giving it awards. These are the guys who make the movies. I hate to say it, but some of the guys making real 3D movies even like it. But no, it isn't real 3D. | ||
| Charles Arrants (Charles) Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 31 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
The point I was making, and will repeat, is that the process does NOT do what its advertising specifically claims it does: give the image "a sense of depth that no camera can ever capture." You can argue that the "Darbeevision" photographs look better than the originals because of added contrast and texture -- but the claim that they have additional depth clues is simply false. Darbeevison isn't even faux 3-D (unlike some processes such as the Pulfrich effect). The photographs are simply totally flat, and look no different than any other high saturation, high contrast images -- no matter how many awards they get. If you want to read glowing press releases and advertising hype about other "revolutionary" 3-D image techniques that are supposedly taking the world by storm, do a Google search on subjects like "ColorCode3D", "ChromaDepth", "Sensio", "AnaChrome", etc. The list of new miracle processes is endless. | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) New member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
You found a producer or director who wanted to use ChromaDepth? | ||
| Scott Warren (Scott_warren) New member Username: Scott_warren Post Number: 20 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
I might appreciate it a bit more if he'd just call it something else--make it totally unrelated to "3D". Like, "unsharp mask" (oops, that's taken) or "multiply" (oops, taken again). "supersaturation"! Looks to me like he just took a good photo, slightly blurred/defocused and slightly desaturated and slightly reduced contrast, then called the original the "after" shot and the processed the "before shot. AFA "next big thing", if you don't count stereo3D which IS the next big thing, I'd say HDR is pretty cool. Only name that I really admire in that list is Robert Altman, and if he said that, I feel he may be losing it...(maybe he means "Dolby Noise reduction"?). | ||
| Scott Warren (Scott_warren) Junior Member Username: Scott_warren Post Number: 21 Registered: 8-2006 Rating: N/A |
Wait a minute...Robert Altman is dead! (And his last picture--Prairie Home Companion--left quite a bit to be desired). Maybe this is all rehashed old news... Scott | ||
| Charles Arrants (Charles) Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 32 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Larry: "You found a producer or director who wanted to use ChromaDepth?" Unfortunately, yes: In May 2006 the VH1 cable television channel ran a series called "I Love the 80s: 3D" specifically produced to be viewed with ChromaDepth glasses. I don't know who the producer and director were -- By now they've probably done the honorable thing and killed themselves. (Yes, it was that bad!) | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) New member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
Did you read his quote at http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/39261/Robert_Altmans_3D_DVD.html? "After I saw (how it worked)," says the elder Altman, "I went to Universal and told them, I can't imagine not using this. I'm not sure if it's an illusion -- I guess it is, but it's an effective illusion." He knows it's in illusion. That isn't the point. And when these guys talk 'depth', they aren't usually talking about what we are, it's usually just short depth of field giving the impression of depth. But there are tools for that too. I really do want to see this on a big screen for myself. Sure it's flat. But is there anything at all there? I haven't seen it yet. It's hard to trust other people. I have heard people talking about IMAX 2D films as being 3D by people who had never seen anything in 3D. It could be too that we that are used to seeing real depth are so spoiled we don't notice this. I blind tested 3 people today with the web site. All were far less cynical about it than I am. Larry Elie | ||
| Charles Arrants (Charles) Junior Member Username: Charles Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Larry: You're right that terms like "depth" and "realism" mean different things to different people. The old Cinerama movies, which had a 2-D image projected on a huge, wrap-around curved screen, looked extremely realistic to some viewers because the image extended into their peripheral vision. Scott: I wish I could agree with you that stereoscopic 3-D "IS the next big thing" -- but I think that's wishful thinking. I'm old enough to have lived through two massively hyped 3-D movie periods (the early 1950s and the early 1980s), and both times the technique proved to be an initially very successful but ultimately short-lived fad. I suspect that the coming crop of digital 3-D movies will suffer the same fate. Unfortunately, movie audiences have always considered 3-D an entertaining gimmick whose appeal wears off quickly. As long as projection techniques require active participation by the viewer (wearing glasses), it's never going to become mainstream. |
