Computer 3D Effects

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> P3D Gregory J. Wageman Wrote:
>It strikes me that a whole new crop of special effects software would
>have to be developed for 3D films.  In a conventional flat film, the
>effect only has to simulate the appearance of a 3D object effectively.
>
>For a stereo film, the effect would have to reproduce not only shading
>and color but actual depth.  In some cases this would simply mean
>casting rays from two different viewpoints to obtain your stereo pair,
>but with other types of effects, entirely new algorithms would be
>required.
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  In todays 3D software that is already being used it is
realtively easy to set up two cameras to view each scene. This is being done
to feed VR helmets and LCD stereo viewing systems for games and other
materials. It's almost as easy as getting the ordinary 2D image from the 3D
environment. Once the scene is set up and lights are in place the two
cameras get a very accurate 3D perspective in the same time that you would
get a single view. This makes it easy to make stereo material from computer
material generally.

There is a need for software to generate the special effects and allow for
stereo overlays and control of the parallax factors. Some work has already
been done with this but information on such software is hard to find other
than the occasional mention that it exists.

The differences between a left image and a right image are relatively small
and subtle. It turns out to be far easier to create special 3D effects than
might be thought. The strongest requirement is that the persons doing the
project have to have 3D in mind and know something of what it takes to get it. 

I've worked with creating 3D effects and have often wished for better
software that was written with a knowledge of 3D but I've been able to work
around that lack using a combination of 2D graphics software and some 3D
software. If I were a programmer, I would already be writing the special
software that would do the special steps that are required. All the special
techniques that are needed do exist in other software but they have been
applied to other processes because the software engineers didn't know about
3D or their project didn't allow them to put it all together. It's like a
big jigsaw puzzle that's been packaged in many different boxes. It takes
someone knowledgable in 3D to even see the picture so that it can be put
together. Any software engineers in this group???

>> P3D Gregory J. Wageman Wrote:
>And of course, all of the "forced perspective" tricks which are employed
>to composite models in-camera into scenes with live action would be
>completely useless in 3D because the depth cues would give them away.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>  These tricks are partially unnecessary in 3D because of what
you say and it opens the door to more effective visual cues on more
important parts of the production. The other factor is that if any special
compositing is required, it is hundreds of times easier to do in the
computer than it is in a camera. 

It seems difficult for those trained with 2D who are always trying to find
ways to express depth in a scene to transition to a medium that has the
depth built in. They could spend less time worrying about the depth, other
than using it correctly, and more time creatively telling the story. It can
allow more effort in the storytelling instead of trying to find ways to make
depth apparent. 3D is a different medium than 2D even though they are
closely related.

The beauty of it is that 3D hasn't been mapped out as completely as
production in 2D has been. There are new rules to work with and new
opportunities that are so far unexplored.

>> P3D Gregory J. Wageman Wrote:
>Is there such a thing as blue-screen effects that work in stereo?
>At the very least it seems that it would require twice the work,
>with separate masks being required for each view.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Yes, blue screen effects work easily with stereo imaging,
especially in the computer manipulation environment. There are times when it
may be two or three times the work and other times when it's less work. In
the end it only matters that the work gets done and that important factors
are present.

>> P3D Gregory J. Wageman Wrote:
>The more I think about it, the more I see that many (most?) current films
>simply could not have been made in 3D without drastic changes.  One
>only has to flip through a recent issue of "Cinefex" to see how often
>such tricks that don't work in 3D are used.  This suggests to me that,
>until the F/X industry perceives a need to evolve new approaches for stereo,
>any new 3D films will be confined to subjects that can be done without
>special effects (e.g. nature programs, documentaries, skin flicks), or
>done entirely with 3D modelled effects only.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  The sad fact is that the whole industry is currently
dominated by thinking in 2D. You would think that these folk were born with
only one eye. It will take a good to excellent demonstration of 3D using new
technology for the industry to bother taking notice. It's harder to get the
attention of those holding the purse strings. Consdering how many millions
are wasted every year on 2D productions with almost no value of any kind,
one almost believes that the money people can't see in Mono let alone 3D Stereo.

I hope those with an interest in 3D won't wait around for the big
productions before making their own quality work available. I'm hoping that
3D made more common by use on computer systems will encourage better film
productions in the future as well. The audience is waiting...

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1437
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************