Re: 3D TV prediction (was "3D TV system under development...")

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:19:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: P3D Bill Costa - comments:
>........................snip ...................
>    That's what I was trying to get at, recording live scenes for
>    volumetric display seems like a daunting problem.  And you made the
>    mistake of asking me to describe my concerns. ;^)
>
>    What I can't understand about such a device is how a live image could
>    be captured.  ........ snip .............Currently there is no way
>    to interpolate the images from the North camera and the East camera to
>    produce a North East perspective.  The only thing I can imagine is
>    this:  ...snip .......... what you would need to do is orbit the
>    camera about the object being video taped at the same RPM.  
> ................. snip ......................

************  Enter digital imaging and modeling... for examples check out
the weather channel on cable. Separate your thinking from the camera process
to the imaging process. It would use stored image and scene data smoothly
integrated together into the *fishtank* scene. Digital models use virtual
cameras from any viewpoint you care to specify. As many as you want or have
them move however you want. The result will be a composited reality but so
is most TV anyway. It may introduce some new conventions to the presentation
but that should not be a big problem. If you are trying to present a *live*
scene you would have some limitations to deal with but they would likely be
dealt with by further compositing processes. So what you view isn't the
total original scene but a mix of the live scene and stored models and
environments that keep the presentation together from all available angles.


>
>    Well for flatties, the image is obviously not real so we have no
>    trouble watching it for what it is, an abstract representation.  For
>    well done 3D, the depth perception is proportional to the image size so
>    it's like looking through a window with the objects at some particular
>    distance from you.  Hyper stereos are cool, but an aerial hyper of, say
>    NYC, looks like a very realistic model -- not the way it would actually
>    be seen from the plane.

*************  Very few people really watch TV or Movies as *unreal* or only
*abstract*. The reality, that all current programming takes advantage of, is
that the viewer is identifying with characters and placing themselves into
whatever scene is being presented, no matter the scale. This fact will be
true of any display medium you care to invent. It shouldn't be difficult at
all to get used to visualizing and identifying with 3D scenes no matter what
the scale. These *objections* sound a lot like what some early TV producers
must have discussed before they started using the current range of strange
camera angles, special effects, trucking, and panning etc. At one point the
thinking was that all such techniques weren't physically possible for an
individual so it shouldn't be used in presentation. They said the audience
wouldn't be able to accept it! How wrong they were! There is nothing wrong
about NYC looking like a 3D model because that is what it does look like
from the air. That's the classic first comment people make when flying, *it
looks like toy houses*! This effect is a first experience kind of thing and
once it's familiar you easily place yourself and the viewed scene into a
frame of reference in which it all makes sense. Remember that any 3D scene
presented by any method is itself still an *abstract representation*,
however ortho or realistic it may be.

>
>    Let's say you could had this new display technology and some how 
>    managed to record a reinactment of a civil war battle scene.  The
>    result would be spectacular, and I'm sure that suspension of disbelieve
>    would be no more difficult that for a flattie.  But I can't see how the
>    image being viewed can look like anything else than very realistic
>    animated toy solders running around on a table top. Many people enjoy a
>    really detailed model train setup, but you don't for a moment mistake
>    it for the real thing.

************  OK, how do you watch a movie? Do you sit there and constantly
remind yourself that this is just a play of shadows on a surface? Which
scenario is likely to allow a person to actualize a suitable virtual
reality, shadows on a flat screen or apparently 3D objects and environments?
In either medium you have the option for any size or scale, the viewer
simply adapts their own perception of the experience to place themselves
into the scene, all the time knowing that physical reality is somewhat
different. Kids who play with toy soldiers can get very much *into* their
play without any interpretation problems, why should it be different for
viewing something that looks like toy soldiers? It's the story and similar
factors that most strongly provide the emotive force behind any
presentation. That will remain true for any 3D experience too. I get similar
feelings just from reading and I don't have a problem about identifying with
the printed page.

Thanks for your comments about HMD. They confirmed my suspicions about their
potential. I notice most people don't like headphones as a rule and I would
expect the same for HMD's.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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