Re: [photo-3d] Dynamic Digital Depth

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I was there.  But, I haven't caught up with answering the existing
messages, let alone starting a new topic.  Thanks anyway, for starting it.

I am always interested in autostereoscopic displays, and I felt that the
monitor with the holographic filter was much better than the one with the
lenticular screen.

A very good friend of mine, Paul Taylor, was standing next to me when I was
looking at these displays.  I hope that he will still be a good friend
if/after he reads this.

The image on the screen at that point was an oblique aerial view, looking
down on some skyscrapers from an angle, as during a fly-by.   The view
appeared to have a lot of depth, but was configured such that the closest
parts (the tops of the roofs) of the tallest buildings just came to
convergence at the screen plane.  Therefore, most of the buildings appeared
to be behind the screen.

Paul made a comment to the effect that you can't get off-the-screen effects
with autostereoscopic systems.  I mentioned that I had previously seen some
(including ones that I personally had created) that did indeed protrude
quite far off of the screen.

At that point, the person on the other side of Paul raised another topic and
engaged him in a conversation.

I continued to watch the images on the screen.

Then it happened.  One of the tallest of the buildings had a tall flagpole
extending from its peak.  As such, that flagpole poked out way off the
screen.

I nudged Paul and asked him to "Look at that!".

Without turning away from the person he was talking to, he said "just a
minute", and continued his conversation (I guess that my interruption was
just too rude).

Upon finishing his conversation, he looked back at the monitor.

You guessed it.  The flagpole was completely out of the picture, and we once
again were looking at smaller buildings behind the screen plane.  He said:
"What was it that you wanted to show me?  I don't see anything different".

Although I continued to watch for quite a while, no other flagpoles or
protruding objects appeared.   If they had, I would have kicked him in the
shins, spun him around, and shouted "LOOK RIGHT NOW!"

Anyway, at this juncture, he will have to take my word for it.

The presentation overall (many, many stereoscopic video systems) was very
enjoyable.  DDD certainly has a lot of capabilities in several areas.

To some extent, they face many of the same problems as C3D does.  Even
though C3D and DDD are competitors in many markets, I was very pleased to
hear the people at C3D speaking highly of the people at DDD, and the people
at DDD speaking highly of the people at C3D.

This is the type of cooperation and mutual respect that is necessary to
bring 3D to the mainstream.  I have a feeling that the management of both
companies are wise enough to recognize that by supporting each other, they
will make the market grow, which will help both companies as well as any
other qualified organization that chooses to enter the market.

Personally, I have expressed this opinion to both Doug Stanley of C3D and
Phil Harman of DDD.  I am pleased to report that both agree with this
concept.

Now, it might be good to hear from some of the others who were there (and I
know that there were others in the photo-3d egroup there; I saw them).

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Alderson" <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:25 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Dynamic Digital Depth


> After about three months of ignoring P3D, I've finally caught up with
> the digests. Fortunately, there are enough knowledgeable people on this
> list that I don't feel I have to comment on prior posts, the topic has
> been covered!
>
> But I am astonished that nobody has written about the field trip our
> Stereo Club of Southern California took to the offices of DDD a couple
> weeks ago, especially since several regular contributors to P3D were
> there.
>
> A few weeks ago, if asked (and I was!), I would have said conversion of
> 2D movies to stereo would be disappointing, at best, with today's
> technology. I went to the DDD demo expecting to see a few cardboard
> planes in poor depth relationship. I was quite surprised. These guys
> actually can convert 2D movies to 3D. The process is not perfect...some
> shots have anomolies that give the conversion away, but many are quite
> good, and indistinguishable from original stereography.
>
> It is not an automated process; there is no "Make 3D" button. Human
> operators still have to create a depth map for at least the first and
> last frames of a cut. I suspect more than that is required, as objects
> enter and leave the frame. Yet, given these depth keyframes, they do
> have intelligent software to track and interpolate the inbetweens. They
> estimate within a year the process will be economically viable: about
> the same cost as adding the embedded subtitles for second languages or
> the hearing-impaired. (I'm a little skeptical, but I didn't think they
> could do this at all!)
>
> Even more astonishing, they have developed a format for 2D/3D compatible
> transmission. They embed a depth map in the 2D image, and convert to
> stereo in real time, using hardware in a settop box. This means they
> have developed remarkable displacement software, much better than
> Photoshop's, to wrap the background elements underneath the foreground.
> (Try this! Most "3D" software will generate a grayscale depthmap; try
> taking the 2d image and map into Photoshop and make a stereo pair with
> the displacement filter. The edges will tear and wreck the stereo if you
> go very far.) And the depth map only adds one or two percent to the file
> size! I feel like I've been to a great magic show--I know you can't saw
> a woman in half, or catch a bullet in your teeth, or pull the nine of
> diamonds out of a hive of bees, but dang if they didn't do it! Talking
> to the head geek, it's quite clear he has dealt with the issues; even
> most 3D people don't understand right off the technical problems of
> stereo conversion.
>
> This is a company to watch.
>
> For fast connections and current browsers (requires Flash plug-in):
>
> www.ddd.com
>
> For slower connections:
>
> www.ddd3d.com
>
> Tony Alderson
>
>
>
>