Good, Bad and Ugly Comments Volume 3

I mentioned before that at least in the past I wasn't paying attention to comments. Well now I am sometimes looking at comments. Found these in response to an article on CNN.com about Glasses Free 3D that could come to theaters in the future.

I've also edited all of typos and as much as some of these people don't deserve it, you do.

"New tech could mean 3D movies with no glasses" from http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/tech/innovation/3d-movies-no-glasses/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Gnat
Bad - Umm... and all you have to do is make sure each and every member of the audience is sitting in the exact same vertical column(s), so their left eye gets the image for the left eye, and their right eye gets the image for their right eye.

Yeah, that's why 3ds/etc. glassesless tech only works for one viewer. And all the glasses less versions run into problems with tearing and such when your head moves between one of the x number of horizontal positions where the 3d effect works.

Coda Frost
Good - Do a search on YouTube for 'Wii Head-tracking Johnny Lee'. I don't see why they haven't utilized this concept for 3D media yet! Imagine a digital media experience where the images onscreen diverge and change in depth according to the position of your head - kind of like how 3D works in reality... This isn't fancy expensive technology - this is using stuff most people have laying around the house. Why are we stuck in infancy mode?

Ashanebfar
Bad - There needs to remain a 2D option. Some of like I only have one eye, and need old school tech. As a living pirate I think us one eyes will have to demand 2D options in future citing Americans with disabilities act or something. Lol

ACrim
Good - If you're going to explain tech, at least do some minimal research. 3d digital films don't use two projectors. They use one with an electro-optic polarizing filter that switches between frames. The frame rate is high enough that no flicker is perceived. The effect is far better (and less headache producing) than the old 3d film method that did require two projectors. It also allows fairly easy conversion to use in 3d television.

Actually, some 3D films are shown using two projectors. Rare use these days but effective if done properly.

Arichww2
Bad - Good god I can't wait for the 3D fad to hurry up and DIE.

Tim Dolan
Good - I have learned that about 15% of the population cannot see 3D stereo; however, I have no problem with anything except anaglyphs (the red/cyan stuff). I have both an Nvidia based shutter glasses laptop and a large LG 3D TV which uses the polarized (passive) system. Both are great to me. The LG will give me eye strain after a couple hours if I am too close to the screen, but at more than 10 feet it is fine. I have had no problem with the Nvidia system, except just the usually staring at a computer screen problem for several hours.

For trivia I played with a system the USAF had back in the 80's which didn't require glasses, although you had to stand in exactly the right spot. They only had the prototype though I did get to use a system regularly that had a connected..

Matt Prendergast
Good - You people defending 2D over 3D would have been the same ones defending black-and-white over color.

shusahai
Ugly - I'm for new technology but let's not go rushing to pay $30 for a movie ticket to see a movie with a crappy story just because it's 3D. B&W movies might be old fashioned now but they more often had quality stories too.

MVanBuren
Good - So tell me oh Sages of the tech world, what are better books or ebooks?
CGI cartoons or the old hand drawn and colored cells?
The old Godzilla movie or the new ones?

Automuseum
Good - Brilliant! Thought it would be based on holography but this is so much simpler. I remember the GM pavilion at EXPO 86 in Vancouver... Everyone thought the effect was a hologram but it was actually projected images reflected off a glass window in front of the stage... simple yet effective. (This is the way it’s done at the Disney and Universal attractions in Orlando).

STARDOTSTAR
Bad - Think of it as a bubble wrap on the screen where each bubble was a plastic lens meant to take a small cutout of the image underneath it, and reflect the proper image to each of your eyes. It's a pretty cool concept in theory. But now think about what kind of image degradation must occur to contain multiple versions of an image segment under each bubble filter, and then run that through plastic. How much sharpness is left? You're looking at TV quality image on a big screen. Now think about moving your head and the images meeting in the wrong eyes or worst. It gets clunky really quick.

akn858
Good - Star- I think that would be better than reality
shoMjj09
Ugly - 3D is by far the WORST idea. I sat through one 3D movie (The Avengers) and although the movie was totally awesome... the 3D glasses and the 3D effects made it a terrible experience. My eyes hurt, my head hurt, and I could barely walk straight after taking the glasses off. Maybe the new technology will make the experience better, but honestly I wouldn't put much effort into it. I am very happy with the old, 2D experience. Call me when holograms are ready for the big screen.

Guest
Good - Right, so 3D should only be evaluated in terms of your personal experience with it.
And that should be the basis of the film industry's approach. It may surprise you that many people do not have problems with 3D. Ultimately, the box office will decide the way to go.

HeyDummy1
Good - It's amazing we've become so spoiled that we have full-color 3D movies and we complain that you have to wear a pair of glasses for a few hours to watch them.

LR - I like this guy

Guest

Good - I know, it's silly. I often have to wear glasses to experience reality. They are called sun glasses. Other people have glasses to correct their vision. Glasses are not a deal breaker. A terrible picture is a deal breaker,

LR - Like this guy too

nyma11
Bad - Are they still trying to push 3d? Wow, I have a 3d TV and I hardly use the feature. Actually the only thing I have ever watched was the Olympics and I had to stop watching because the picture is actually better in 2d. Better quality that is.

STARDOTSTAR
Bad - Guys this is OLD technology, ruins the sharpness of an image, and requires you to be in the perfect location of the theater. A major 3d company has been testing this kind of technology for over 10 years and has seen no profitable use for it outside of commercial display monitors. They have bazillions of patents and no doubt are taking a profit off of every 3ds sold. That said, you will hate the theater version of this, and your TV will require a filter in front of it, most likely permanently installed... Bad idea.

Thiago Angelini
Good - I interacted with a 3D TV in 2010 during a technology event in Brazil and the result was exquisite. Therefore, I strongly believe that an unveil process has to deal with commercial issues instead of its development challenges.

Michael David Slowik
Good - 3D is awesome anyone who complains about it is brain dead

STARDOTSTAR
Good - Hex - not necessarily - it depends on how the original image was shot. If it was shot with two cameras then the 3d on a character's face should have enough offset in the two eyes to make a good 3d rendition. If the show was shot in 2d and then "extracted" using digital technology, they likely cut of the face from the image and placed it in a separate 3d space, but all as one unit, creating the "cut out" look we have all grown to hate. This is why avatar was so great. It acquired the images using two separate lenses.

drowlord
Ugly - 3D film looks fake and lame. People that defend crappy products are brain dead. We're decades away from a decent 3D technology. Maybe when it sucks less, film makers will put more effort into 3D films, instead of their half-hearted 3D-in-post-production gimmick that entices the dimmest movie-goers to pay twice as much to watch what looks like an animated card-stock diorama.

Hexdragon
Good - 3D is only awesome for field of depth, such as the view of Paris in Hugo. Any actor in the shot is still shown in 2D because they do not have enough depth for the tech to work correctly.

WonderingMo
Good - Especially since they are not forced to buy into it. Funny people have nothing better to do.
WonderingMo
Good - And the capitalistic disclaimer at the end...technology in its infancy. Yeah, tired of hearing about it. Just tell us when it is ready.

drowlord
Good - Right, because the kids who grew up with the promise of 3D media are now in their 30's and 40's, and everything is still in its infancy. My, my, are we impatient or what.

pacyderm
Ugly - Whoop di freaking doo. Screw 3d

YerBoogiemn

Bad - Does anyone really want this? I doubt it, but it is pushed all the same. Of all my favorite movies not once did I think "gee, this would be better in 3D."

LR - I think about this when seeing a 2D movie. And yes we want it.

A

show more show less

show more show less

A

show more show les

show more show less

show more show less

show more show less

show more show less

show more show less

Good, Bad and Ugly Comments Volume 2

I mentioned before that at least in the past I wasn't paying attention to comments.  Well now I am sometimes looking at comments. Here is what I found on just one site and only one site today.

From http://www.torrent-invites.com/general-discussion/206979-3d-movies-2012-a.html

Question posted:  Anyone else love 3D like me?

The Bad -  Originally Posted by supercat

To be honest, I tend to avoid 3D every time I go to the cinema. Almost 9 out of 10 times, I pay extra for 3D subtitles. Only a select few 3D movies had some added value, and right now only Avatar 3D comes to my mind...

The Good - Originally Posted by mrnewbie

Transformers 3D made me feel sick, but Shrek & Toy Story were amazing, maybe 3D is better suited to animation?

The Good - Originally Posted by dysrhythmic

I love 3D! If a movie is in 3D, I make it a priority to watch it in 3D. I don't know why, but I'm just fascinated with it. Even better than movies are 3D games!

The Good - Originally Posted by thelars

I'm anxious to see Hitchcock's Dial M since it was originally filmed for 3d. The animated movies are usually a safe bet for 3d, even the older movies (Lion King/Finding Nemo), and Brave was beautifully done. I was really disappointed in the Star Wars release (not just because it was episode 1) so I plan on staying away from the live action movies where 3d is an afterthought.

The Ugly - Originally Posted by smellycurtains

I too try to avoid 3D movies like the plague. I've always thought it was a gimmick, and i'm surprised that it has lasted this long. It seems that it's just something that producers tack onto a movie, post production, to make a couple extra bucks. Just like how some game devs tack multiplayer on games that don't ever need it, like Uncharted 3 for example. I would much rather have more money going into the cinematography of a film, for special effects, etc, than have them tack on 3D experience.

Weekly Top 10 Reasons to Love 3D

It's time to create a weekly update on why you should support and be positive about 3D.  Keeping in mind 3D encompasses many industries. 

Number 10
2D to 3D conversion

Number 9
CG

Number 8
Animation

Number 7
Art

Number 6
Presentations

Number 5
Printing

Number 4
Medical

Number 3
Games

Number 2
Entertainment

Number 1
The use in education

Lanny Rutkin

A Rebuttal: End of the 3D boom in our cinemas?

Today I came across and aricle titled "Is this the end of the 3D boom in our cinemas?" Trend fails to take off as revenue slumps to just £16,000 which can be found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179482/Is-end-3D-boom-cinemas-Trend-fails-revenue-slumps-just-16-000.html?ito=feeds-newsxml,

Simple answer:  Yes and no.  The boom might be over, the hype might be over but the industry is growing leaps and bounds.  There is no reason to "hype" this wonderful technology. It's all around us in everyday products like TVs.  Either get a TV that has 3D or not is the big question and more and more are getting a 3D TV.  Sure, not everyone is going to watch everything in 3D.  But are plenty of times when you will.

Lizz Thomas of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Liz+Thomas, according to me is NO expert on the issue.  She's just reporting on what she read be that real or not, be that taken in our out of text.

While 47 3D films were released in 2011 – an increase of almost 20 on 2010 – takings were down.
Lanny - Lizz, its July 26, 2012.  And the film industry is doing just fine thank you.

Legacy: Film fans fed up with inflated prices and disillusioned by the lack of added value from watching many movies in the format, opted to stick with traditional 2D showings instead.  According to research compiled by the British Film Institute 3D films accounted for a fifth of box office revenues last year compared to almost a quarter two years ago.

Lanny - Legacy?  Seriously?
It found the average cinema in the UK made £32,000 from 3D films in 2010 but this had slumped by half to £16,000 in 2011.

The BFI report said: ‘This year saw signs that UK cinema goers are becoming more selective in their choice of 3D films, choosing the format for films where it makes a real contribution to their experience but sticking to 2D where they don’t perceive any added value.’
Lanny - It's great we have a choice.  People are slowly realizing not every movie will be better in 3D.  Hopefully, they all will be in the future.  I mean come on, let's face it, some movies early on that were made in 3D or converted in 3D didn't cut it.  But I'm only talking about a few and I won't bother to name them.
It had been expected the 3D trend would soar after the success of James Cameron’s epic Avatar, which made £615 million worldwide, with 90 per cent of the audience watching in 3D, and the huge popularity of Toy Story 3.
Lanny - um...er...I think it has soared and it's soaring.  And Lizz, I guess there hasn't been anymore movies making millions has there...like say every heard of the new Spiderman movie or say that little movie Oscar winning movie called "Hugo"?

He added that instead consumers were opting to watch in 3D when they felt it really made a difference.
For example, motor-racing documentary TT3D: Closer to the Edge was hugely popular in the format – grossing more than £1.2 million, which made it one of the most popular documentaries of the year.
Similarly the re-release of the Lion King in 3D was an “event” which meant many wanted to watch a classic in a new format, grossing more than £15 million.
Avatar and Toy Story 3 were huge hits in the format in the UK in 2009 and 2010, grossing £67million and £73.8 million respectively in the UK.
By contrast the only standout 3D hit last year was the final film in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, which was the final film in the franchise and grossed £73 million.
Lanny - So Hugo and others weren't standouts?  Seriously? 

Another reason for the slump in interest, is that 2011 saw a rise in the popularity of character-led films in Britain such as The Kings Speech, which made £45.7 million, and Bridesmaids, which made £23 million, and these do not need the special technology.

Lanny - right you are Lizz.  But it doesn't equate to a slump in interest. 

Daily Mail film critic Chris Tookey said that consumers have also wised up to the fact that sum of the “3D films” are simply a rip off.
Lanny - Bring it on Chris.   
He said: ‘Hollywood has jumped on the 3D bandwagon and is driving it hell-for-leather.
Lanny - Yeah, and the 3D movie industry hasn't created new jobs have they.
‘The irony is that many of the 3D movies that cinema-goers are paying over the odds for aren’t really in 3D at all.’
Lanny - "many" of the 3D movies. How many is many Lizz? 

Forecast: Last year, Sir David Attenborough warned 3D television would not take off in Britain. He pointed to Justin Bieber’s Never Say Never Again, which actually on featured just 30 minutes of his concert in that format.

Lanny - and the Bieber movie grossed in the U.S. alone over 73 million. 

An additional problem is that some people feel unwell when watching in this format. Around 10 per cent of the UK population has poor binocular vision, which means it is difficult for them to see 3D effects in movies and video games.
Lanny - I feel for people who have vision problems.  10%?  So that means 90% don't have problems. 

There are also question marks over whether 3D television will really take off, with some industry figures insisting that until a “glasses-free, affordable” option is available it is unlikey to.
Lanny - So it's a total waste that NBC is broadcasting some 200 hours world wide in 3D. 

Last year, Sir David Attenborough warned 3D television would not take off in Britain.
The veteran, whose documentary for Sky - Flying Monsters - was made in the format, insisted it would not become the norm for viewers because it was ‘too isolating’.
Instead Sir David said consumers would opt to watch ‘big events’ in 3D such as World Cup football matches, Olympic sports, ground-breaking new nature or history shows.
Lanny - Lizz, can I call you Lizzy?  Why all the last year this, last year that?  We're half way through 2012 Lizzy and the 3D industry is doing fine. Sure, we'd all like more content, more movies...but Lizzy...we've just begun.

Lanny Rutkin

Will New Apple iPhone 5 Have 3D?

There are rumors all over the place speculating if Apple will finally get on the 3D bandwagon.  It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of when.  I've already seen patents covering new TVs and even patents on iPads with 3D.  These aren't secrets.  Below is a patent that covers 3D on a camera.  This was first reported in March of 2012. 

Come on Apple go for it.  The 3D world needs you.

 

Apple Invents a Killer 3D Imaging Camera for iOS Devices

Apple has invented a killer 3D imaging camera that will apply to both still photography and video. The new cameras in development will utilize new depth-detection sensors such as LIDAR, RADAR and Laser that will create stereo disparity maps in creating 3D imagery. Additionally, the cameras will use advanced chrominance and luminance Sensors for superior color accuracy. And if that wasn't enough, the new cameras will not only include facial recognition but also facial gesturing recognition. Intel discussed the coming 3D revolution back in 2010 and it appears that Apple wants to be one of the first to introduce this killer 3D camera. While others may have beaten Apple to market first, the technology described in today's invention will definitely provide iOS devices with the ability to view killer 3D images that could only be appreciated on Apple's "Resolutionary" Retina Display. Apple's resolutionary experience has only begun. With the ability to view stunning 3D imagery, photos and videos on our new iPad displays, the resolutionary experience is only going pop our brains even further.

Today's Cameras with Limited 3D Capabilities

Existing three-dimensional image capture devices, such as digital cameras and video recorders, can derive limited three-dimensional visual information for objects located within a captured area. For example, some imaging devices can extract approximate depth information relating to objects located within the captured area, but are incapable of obtaining detailed geometric information relating to the surfaces of these objects.

Such sensors may be able to approximate the distances of objects within the captured area, but cannot accurately reproduce the three-dimensional shape of the objects. Alternatively other imaging devices can obtain and reproduce surface detail information for objects within the captured area, but are incapable of extracting depth information.

Accordingly, these sensors may be incapable of differentiating between a small object positioned close to the sensor and a large object positioned far away from the sensor.

Apple's Advanced 3D Camera Solutions

Apple's invention relates to systems, apparatuses and methods for capturing a three-dimensional image using one or more dedicated cameras.

According to Apple, one embodiment may take the form of a three-dimensional camera configured to capture at least one image including one or more objects, comprising: a first sensor for capturing a polarized image, the first sensor including a camera and a polarized filter associated with the first camera; a second sensor for capturing a first non-polarized image; a third sensor for capturing a second non-polarized image; and at least one processing module for deriving depth information for the one or more objects utilizing at least the first non-polarized image and the second non-polarized image, the processing module further operative to combine the polarized image, the first non-polarized image, and the second non-polarized image to form a composite three-dimensional image.

Another embodiment may take the form of three-dimensional imaging apparatus configured to capture at least one image including one or more objects, comprising: a first sensor for capturing a polarized chrominance image and determining surface information for the one or more objects, the first sensor including a color imaging device and a polarized filter associated with the color imaging device; a second sensor for capturing a first luminance image; a third sensor for capturing a second luminance image; and at least one processing module for deriving depth information for the one or more objects utilizing at least the first luminance image and the second luminance image and combining the polarized chrominance image, the first luminance image, and the second luminance image to form a composite three-dimensional image utilizing the surface information and the depth information.

Still another embodiment may take the form of a method for capturing at least one image of an object, comprising: capturing a polarized image of the object; capturing a first non-polarized image of the object; capturing a second non-polarized image of the object; deriving depth information for the object from at least the first non-polarized image and the second non-polarized image; determining a plurality of surface normals for the object, the plurality of surface normals derived from the polarized image; and creating a three-dimensional image from the depth information and the plurality of surface normals.

Sample image sensing devices include charge-coupled device (CCD) sensors, complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor sensors, infrared sensors, light detection and ranging sensors, and the like. Further, the image sensing devices may be sensitive to a range of colors and/or luminances, and may employ various color separation mechanisms such as Bayer arrays, Foveon X3 configurations, multiple CCD devices, dichroic prisms and the like.

Devices that will use the new 3D Capturing Technology

Apple states that in some embodiments, the image sensing device may be configured to convert or facilitate converting the captured image into digital image data. The image sensing device may be hosted in various electronic devices including, but not limited to, digital cameras, personal computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile telephones, a standalone camera, or any other devices that can be configured to process image data.

Components Integrated into a 3D Image Capturing Camera

Apple's patent FIG. 1A below is a functional block diagram that illustrates certain components of one embodiment of a three-dimensional camera.



As shown in FIG. 1A above, the three-dimensional imaging apparatus/camera 100 may include a first imaging device 102, a second imaging device 104, and an image processing module 106. The first imaging device 102 may include a first imaging device and the second imaging device 104 may include a second imaging device and a polarizing filter 108 associated with the second imaging device.

Generating Stereo Disparity Maps

The fields of view of the first and second imaging devices 112 and 114 noted above may be offset so that the received images are slightly different. For example, the field of view 112 of the first imaging device 102 may be vertically, diagonally, or horizontally offset from the second imaging device 104, or may be closer or further away from a reference plane or point. Offsetting the fields of view of the first and second imaging devices 112 and 114 may provide data useful for generating stereo disparity maps, as well as extracting depth information.

Depth-Detection Technique Options: LIDAR, RADAR and Laser

Apple states that the first imaging device 102 noted in FIG. 1A above may be configured to derive an approximate relative distance of an object 110 by measuring properties of electromagnetic waves as they are reflected off or scattered by the object and captured by the first imaging device.

In one embodiment, the first imaging device may be a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensor. The LIDAR sensor may emit laser pulses that are reflected off of the surfaces of objects in the image and detect the reflected signal. The LIDAR sensor may then calculate the distance of an object from the sensor by measuring the time delay between transmission of a laser pulse and the detection of the reflected signal. Other embodiments may utilize other types of depth-detection techniques, such as infrared reflection, RADAR, laser detection and ranging, and the like.

Utilizing Microlenses

Apple invention also touches on the fact that their 3D capturing camera will utilize microlenses that overly subfilters that focus on polarized light. The microlenses can be formed from any suitable material for transmitting and diffusing light through the light guide, including plastic, acrylic, silica, glass, and so on and so forth. Additionally, the light guide may include combinations of reflective material, highly transparent material, light absorbing material, opaque material, metallic material, optic material, and/or any other functional material to provide extra modification of optical performance.

In one embodiment, the microlenses may be convex and have a substantially rounded configuration. Other embodiments may have different configurations. For example, in one embodiment, the microlenses may have a conical configuration, in which the top end of each microlens is pointed.

In other embodiments, the microlenses may define truncated cones, in which the tops of the microlenses form a substantially flat surface. Additionally, in some embodiments, the microlenses may be concave surfaces, rather than convex.

As is known, the microlenses may be formed using a variety of techniques, including laser-cutting techniques, and/or micro-machining techniques, such as diamond turning. After the microlenses are formed, an electrochemical finishing technique may be used to coat and/or finish the microlenses to increase their longevity and/or enhance or add any desired optical properties.

Chrominance and Luminance Sensors


Other essentials noted in the 3D camera design include the use of a first chrominance sensor (202) and a luminance sensor (204). The luminance sensor may be configured to capture a luminance component of incoming light. Additionally, each of the chrominance sensors may be configured to capture color components of incoming light. In one embodiment, the chrominance sensors 202,206 may sense the R (Red), G (Green), and B (Blue) components of an image and process these components to derive chrominance information.

Other embodiments may be configured to sense other color components, such as yellow, cyan, magenta, and so on. Further, in some embodiments, two luminance sensors and a single chrominance sensor may be used. That is, certain embodiments may employ a first luminance sensor, a first chrominance sensor and a second luminance sensor, such that a stereo disparity (e.g., stereo depth) map may be generated based on the offsets of the two luminance images. Each luminance sensor captures one of the two luminance images in this embodiment.

Facial and Gesture Recognition

In another embodiment, the three-dimensional imaging apparatus may be used for recognizing facial gestures. Facial gestures may include, but are not limited to, smiling, grimacing, frowning, winking, and so on and so forth. In one embodiment, this may be accomplished by detecting the orientation of various facial muscles using surface geometry data, such as the mouth, eyes, nose, forehead, cheeks, and so on, and correlating the detected orientations with various gestures.

3D Models Created by Rotating Objects

In another embodiment, the three-dimensional imaging apparatus may be used to scan an object, for example, to create a three-dimensional model of the object. This embodiment may be accomplished by taking multiple photographs of the object or video while rotating the object. As the object is rotated, the image sensing device may capture more of the surface geometry and use the geometry to create a three-dimensional model of the object.
In another related embodiment, multiple photographs or video may be taken while the image sensing device is moved relative to the object, and used to construct a three-dimensional model of the objects within the captured image(s). For example, a user may take video of a home while walking through the home and the image sensing device could use the calculated depth and surface detail information to create a three-dimensional model of the home. The depth and surface detail information of multiple photographs or video stills may then be matched to construct a seamless composite three-dimensional model that combines the surface detail and depth from each of the photos or video.

The coming 3D Revolution was first discussed in our report titled "Intel's CES Keynote 2010, Apple and iLife 3D." The Intel rep stated that it would take 8 to 16 processors to pull off 3D in simple to use consumer applications. Fitting this into a camera would be stunning.

Patent Credits

Apple's patent application was originally filed in Q3 2011by inventors Brett Bilbrey, Michael Culbert, David Simon, Rich DeVaul, Mushtag Sarwar and David Gere and published today by the US Patent and Trademark Office.


Notice: Patently Apple presents a detailed summary of patent applications with associated graphics for journalistic news purposes as each such patent application is revealed by the U.S. Patent & Trade Office. Readers are cautioned that the full text of any patent application should be read in its entirety for full and accurate details. Revelations found in patent applications shouldn't be interpreted as rumor or fast-tracked according to rumor timetables. Apple's patent applications have provided the Mac community with a clear heads-up on some of Apple's greatest product trends including the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iOS cameras, LED displays, iCloud services for iTunes and more. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments.

Lanny Rutkin

A Rebuttal: 3D Needs to Be Obnoxious

In response to a an article from 3DTV.com called "3D Needs to Be Obnoxious", I thought I'd throw in my two cents.  3D does not have to be obnoxious. Period.  Nice try 3DTV.

Sure, ever since Avatar came out and so many of us were enthralled by the captivating technological special effects, many of us found effects that were in your face to be exciting.  But more often or not, some of these effects can get in the way of the movie.  I do love in your face effects, don't get me wrong. 

A movie is about a story.  The director tries to capture your attention by creating a compelling story.  Using the right effects be them 3D or not, should enhance the story. 3D is one of the ultimate tools to capture your attention and enhance the movie. 

Hugo was the first movie in 3D that I've seen that was made in a way that you or at least I did, feel like I was on set in the movie. I only saw it once and can still recall some of the vivid scenes created and transformed by the the use of 3D.  No in your face effects were needed.  Much has to be attributed to Marin Scorsese's direction.  He created a compelling story about the early days of film making along with his inside the film movements that are genius.  This was the first movie shot in 3D that wasn't an action thriller. 

3DTV says "HUGO as actually doing a disservice to the 3D viewing comment, for exactly the reasons noted as to why it’s “great” for 3D. 3D subtle? Does that work to bring in the viewers and make the technology stand out from 2D? If subtle is what’s needed, then why didn’t those films back in the 50’s done by master producers like Hitchcock drive 3D into the mainstream?
Now I’m not arguing as to “quality” -- obviously HUGO’s story and execution overall makes a Conan pale in comparison. But as far as the 3D goes, the viewer who’s paid extra bucks in the theater for a 3D experience will feel cheated by HUGO -- because 3D needs to be in your face to stand out!"

The viewers who paid extra bucks in the theater for a 3D experience were awarded with a true academy award winner!  I know of no one complaining. 

Action thrillers in 3D these days seem to throw at you the same in your face effects.  If there is a sword involved then the sword hangs in the negative space and you want to try to touch it.  Bullets, swords, cars and more coming at you, action in general, follows the same path." 

3D simply enhances the experience with or with out without effects.  I bet anyone who has seen a 3D movie VS a 2D movie can remember more of the movie.  Isn't that enough incentive to see a movie in 3D?

The Great Gatsby staring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire due out this December 25 was shot in 3D.  The idea was to get the audience involved within the picture.  We won't see any special effects.  We'll be in the middle of the film seeing more than we could in 2D.  It's simple.  3D is a great tool to enhance the movie experience. 

But I will add this about special effects in the future.  I point blank made a comment to Vince Pace of the Cameron Pace Group earlier this year.  I said 'you held back many special effects in 3D right?"  His answer about Avatar 2 was "you ain't seen nothin yet". 

Lanny Rutkin

3D Comments: Good, Bad and Stupid with added Humor

I haven't been one to pay attention to comments.  But now, I think it's time to start posting what consumers and professionals alike are posting in response to articles.  I'm starting using a reference to my rebuttal posted here called "A rebuttal. The 3D Hype Bubble Is Now Completely Busted".


I don't know these people, but felt I should at least put down their comment names. No spell check has been done. 

Ugly:  GizmoDuck "The days where you absolutely had to see a hit movie in 3D are over."

With the exception of Avatar, those days never existed.


LR - I can't wait for the next "hit" movie in 3D.


Stupid:  R M "When there is no difference between looking at a screen in 2-D versus a screen in 3-D, that is when  3-D might take off.  There must be absolutely zero effort on the part of the viewer.  No bad angles, no headaches, no glasses; just crisp, 3-D viewing.

Only then it will take off.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that kind of technology in the near future though.  Though it is a tough call even for then because really, I think we are content with our screens being "merely" 2-D."


LR - So 3D hasn't taken off?  So maybe R M can't see 3D and should consult a Dr.


Good - TheTechCurmudgeon: "3D is not busted. It's simply taking its rightful place as just one of the expressive tools in an artists toolbox. People tire of 3D as a gimick, just as they tired of "talkies" or technicolor. But used skillfully, 3D will continue to enhance a movie's (or game's) impact, and delight the viewer."


Good - DWraySweZ: "As a proud owner of a 3DS I really am very happy with the 3D effect that the 3DS implantments.  Games like Kid Icarus, Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario 3D Land, really make it want to be there and are a joy to play withar S it on.  If you use the stand that came bundled with kid Icarus, for all of your 3D experiences it works better than expected on quality games like the ones I mentioned.  Metal Gear Solid and Most Especially- Resident Evil: Revelations are great 3rd party HARDCORE titles that make the 3D a must have.  I don't think Nintendo should make it the Main selling point, but 3D if applied to the right atmosphere makes for a better experience than just plain old 2D.  I'm a fan of 3D but does it deserve the money that it cost to enjoy it?"

LR - Like any new technology, prices will come down over time.

Ugly - Sam Trutna: The major problem here is that 3D, in all of it's current forms, is terrible. It seems like whichever 3D method you choose, a headache is inevitable if you use it for too long, and you often get the experience at the cost of visual quality. Then at the end of the day, for a lot of people, we're left with the feeling that there's no real added value despite the added cost. I've gone and paid the extra $5 to see a movie in 3D, and I can't really tell you why or what that $5 got me since, in subsequent viewings in 2D, I didn't feel like like 3D made the movie any better.

LR - I know on no one who suffers from 3D.  Oh I'm sure there are and I feel for them.  If someone is that unhappy after viewing a film in either 2D or 3D, then ask for a refund and shut up.

Good -Michael David Slowik: Another clueless writer. Takes a photo of a DS and says 3D bubble has burst. How clueless. Have you seen what 3D Mammograms are doing ? How about 3D printing? Have you see the 3D 4K glasses free units coming in the next 12 months? I laugh every time a writer gets bored and tries to ruin the 3D experience. I Love 3D and can't wait to see the internet in 3D which will happen very soon. As far as 3D movies heck 2D movies suck did the bubble burst on 2D movies? We see the world in 3D glasses free and when you see it on your computer glasses free you will all be blown away. Nice try but 3D has not even started yet

LR - I like this guy.  And I can't wait to the see the Internet in 3D too.

Good - bbflyer:

Article is negatively biased towards 3D.  It fails to mention that 4 of the top 5 grossing movies of all time are in 3D - Avatar, The Avengers, Harry Potter 7B, Transformers 3.  Titanic, the number 2 movie of all time and the only one that wasn't originally released in 3D was re-released in 3D this year and did over $300MM globally.  The Avengers released earlier this year did 52% opening weekend in 3D domestically and played to a much larger audience.  It did almost 80% in the UK in 3D as well.  China's box office is now on pace to cross $3B this year and 40% of it is in 3D and has been growing at over 10% y/y for the last decade (the entire box office - 3D growth has been much higher).
The author compares 2010 to 2011 which isn't a fair comparison because the majority of Avatar played in 2010 so it skewed the 3D box receipts.  Interestingly, the author does not compare how the 3D box is doing 2011 vs. 2012...
As far as gaming and the home, the technology is still improving and being perfected.  These are the equivalent of the early days of HD and it will take time to get it right and create the content and demand for 3D

LR - Numbers are louder then words.

Bad - Torakhan: There are several reasons I am unimpressed with the current 3D formats.

Movies:
• Dimming/dulling of the image due to the polarized lenses•  Related to the above: Every other frame of the 24 frames/second is black.  So not only are you only getting 12 frames/second, but it's flickering back and forth with a black frame between useful frames.  This not only dulls the image (in my belief), but is creating a lot of headaches.
•  Because of the problem with frame rates and blackened frames, action scenes turn blurry/jerky because each eye is missing one of the frames needed to make it smooth.
•  2D movies decide your focus/depth of field, but 3D is most effective when it lets our eyes make those choices of focus on our own.  Currently, fast-action/fast-edit cuts means that in 3D, our eyes have to jump back and forth in focus to different distances, and this can be REALLY frustrating when your eyes are focusing back and forth so quickly.
My suggestions: 48/50 frames/second (like The Hobbit) may mean that that black-frame each eye sees will be far lessened and less noticeable.  Also, it means we might not get the weird motion-blurring.  Of course it's going to make the movie LOOK a lot different too, as we've grown up with  movies projecting at 24 frames/second, and 50 is going to look more like real-life, but that's a different argument.   Also, I would suggest that 2D and 3D movies have different edits, so that 2D can still have the fast-cuts back and forth, but maybe 3D movies have longer takes that allow us to adjust our eyes to the scene and really take it in instead.  We're still stuck with the "dimming" situation, but maybe some technology in the next generations will be able to fix this (better than just brightening the projector.)
TV:•  Most folks are not watching their TVs at a distance that makes 3D very useful (in my opinion.)  We watch our 37" from about 15' away, and even most other living rooms (that I go into) have most TVs being about the same size and at no closer than 8' from the viewer (I do have one friend with a 70" TV with seating 8' from the TV, and THAT is probably the scenario that best suits 3D TV.)  However, I can't imagine 3D being that great of a benefit at a distance that doesn't feel immersive.
•  The current 3D technology typically uses battery-operated flicker lenses.  Expensive glasses that each person must purchase just to watch TV/movies blows.  Now, I've seen a few TVs/systems selling the polarized lenses akin to movie theaters (Real3D), and those have a better chance of getting into the public, even if it dims the colors/brightness on the screen.
•  Even if screens have self-contained 3D, I'm not certain that it will be a big enough draw until we get to a generation where we are presented with a 3D rendered presentation that is more than just a trick of the eye, and more of a re-creation of 3D images on a plane (a hologram.)  Yet, even then, will we want to sit and watch it as we do now, or will it require an evolution in our ideas of visual entertainment

LR - Currenlty, the majority of theaters use polarized glasses and not active.  I'm sure many people have no idea of the different types of 3D being shown.  And it just goes to show you, we have much to learn about. 

Good - John_in_Colorado: I'm using a Panasonic 3D home projector that gives me a 200" screen on a wall that is painted white. I sit just over 20' away from the screen, which is 14'6" wide and 8'2" high.

When I look straight at the screen I'm looking at an imaginary line across the bottom third of the screen. To see the top of the screen my eyes and head only have to tilt up a combined total of 15 degrees. The image is sharp. The 3D experience is comfortable and immersive.
You don't climb Kilimanjaro in one day.
Like anything else, you don't want to overdo it at first by watching too many hours of 3D.
But after a week of regular use, you can watch a couple 3D movies back-to-back with no discomfort at all. This is just my own experience along with my friends.


LR - This is good and bad.  It's good he's got a 3D home projector.  It's bad that I don't have one.


Good - Steve Buckley: When they make holographic interfaces-- THEN we'll have real 3D.
Until then, would someone.... ANYONE please tell them to shut up!?!


LR - Thanks Steve. 


Well there you have it for today.  Thanks for your support.


Lanny Rutkin