Re: [photo-3d] Re: stereo decline

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

> In the 1980's I had a family of my own to record and 
> decided to get a video camera.  I started to pay more
> attention to how professionals take movies to pick up tricks that 
> would make my videos look better.  I soon noticed that 2D 
> professional movies communicate a lot of 3D to viewers due to the 
> motion parallax that occurs because the camera is often in
> motion as the scene is being shot.  I could do this with my video 
> camera by moving to one side or the other as I was taking video.  
> The flaw in this way to add 3D was the hand held jiggle introduced 
> which was very annoying to a viewer.  

All motion picture directors try to add depth. Although the depth they
want is not the same as Stereoscopic Depth. Even the beginning
photographer eventually understands that objects in the foreground add
"Depth" to a scene they are trying to capture. As for your method, I
think a better approach would be to avoid the moving from side to side.
Jiggle is the result as you point out.


> Professional movie makers have an expensive array of booms and cameras
on wheels 
> or flying in the air that move very smoothly as the scenes are being 
> shot.  The technology for providing this smooth motion parallax has 
> been improving steadily so that now-a-days the
> amount of 3D effect communicated by high budget 2D movies is 
> amazing.  Sometimes it can make you feel almost weightless as the 
> helicopter flys over the rim of a canyon etc.

I agree, but I doubt Stereo is on their minds. Motion Parallax Stereo
takes more than simple movement from side to side by the camera operator.
Granted, it must move laterally, but with a great deal of care. You are
also limited by your scene, and by how the camera can move. Be aware that
there are far better ways to shoot 3D movies. 

>  My proposal is that stereo or 3D has not been declining at all, 
> at least in the movie theater and even on TV.  The 3D communicated 
> is not conveyed as left and right eye images but as motion parallax 
> information.  The same information reaches our
> brains but the left and right views are time delayed.  Our brains 
> are able to combine the time delayed motion parallax information so 
> that we can sense the depth in the scenes we are watching.  It's all 
> done intentionally by very skilled
> cinematographers who understand exactly how to communicate the 3D 
> information of a particular scene.  The transmission is so flawless 
> that a lot of viewers don't even realize they are watching a "3D" 
> movie.  

This is the idea behind the Pulfrich Process. We have to be careful here
because they are not watching a 3D movie, just watching scenes that are
well photographed. Foreground and a look of depth is very important. This
is not to say they are creating 3D or stereoscopic images. A sense of
scale and dimension is vital. 

>  I think the amount of 3D in professional movies has been 
> steadily increasing since the 1950's not declining.  Making 3D 
> movies using a left and right camera to be projected to viewers 
> wearing polarized or LCD glasses is extremely complex,
> difficult, expensive and obsolete.  Even when it's done well it 
> doesn't add much if anything to the show.


True, if you are using shutter glasses. However, they were not around in
1950 (Actually, there was a Russian system that used a purely mechanical
system to do the same thing as an LCD Shutter). For the most part, 3D
projected in a theater will rely upon polarization. If well done, it is
spectacular to see. My favorite stereo movie is House of Wax.
Fortunately, everything was done perfectly. The man that projected it
knew his stuff. the result was an amazing experience that i have never
seen duplicated.

> I hope you folks don't decide to burn me at the stake for proposing 
> this viewpoint.  -   Don Parks


No Don, it is just a little confusing to me. I see what you are getting
at. I think the entire point about the posts relating to "Stereo Decline"
are talking about the apparent decline of Stereoscopic Photography. The
idea of motion parallax in movies is interesting. Everyone has seen this
but not really thought about the stereo information that can be taken
from movies where the scene runs laterally. The filter serves provides a
slight delay, and if a scene runs laterally across the field of view, you
are actually capturing a left and right eye view to some extent.

It might be fun to see any current movie, then see it again, but wearing
Pulfrich Glasses to uncover the 3D information.

Bob