41–50 of 75 posts
3D movie projection is exciting because it may allow film, as an art form, to be more like video games. Those who say video games are an art form tend to offer two explanations: 1) they can convey thought-provoking stories, much like traditional movies; 2) they're spatial competitions, similar to the way there's an art in learning how to maneuver around a tennis court. When 3D projection is incorporated into some mov…
Another factor is simulator sickness. Even if you could get the perfect 3D environment going (say via the Oculus Rift), your inner ear will start to complain that what it is seeing is not matching what it's feeling and your stomach will thinks its been poisoned and induce vomiting. The only way '3D' will ever work is if the movie is jacked straight into your brain, ala 'Strange Days'.
Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed" into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the 3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We already have consumer level light…
http://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/central-gallery/giant-mir...
Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed" into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the 3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We already have consumer level light…
I was recently at the Exploratorium in SF (Embarcadero). They have a mirror there that tricks your brain into thinking you are seeing an upside-down reflection of yourself hanging in the air about 5ft in front of where the mirror actually is. I actually tried to touch the 'reflection' and my hand just met the air. My first thought was why don't we use these to create 3D images. Would your domed mirror proposal work s…
The kind of system I'm talking about needs a 2D image with enough "pixels" to fill a volume convincingly instead of just a 2D plane, and the optics would need to be far more complicated, precise, and created at a very small scale which would appear as a textured surface like a fresnel lense or one of those 3D lenticular stickers you sometimes see. Then once you've figured that out, you need to get the projection and the optics to line up precisely- unless you can figure out a way to build in some tolerance to the alignment of the projection.
Aside from that, the goal is essentially the same. To produce a field of light coming out of some "window" with the same directional qualities as the light coming out of a real window.
If the goal of displays is to reproduce the real world (which may or may not be true, but I'd argue is true for some class of displays) then I would argue that 3D will eventually become standard, simply because the world is 3D. However I think the biggest current barrier for accurate representation of the world is contrast ratio, which we are orders of magnitude off of. I propose a sort of turning test for displays w…
I don't disagree with you at all, but if you're using the term "3D" in the same way as the article, the first "3D" in that sentence is referring to stereoscopic displays that are driven by our specific animal biology of having two eyes, while the second "3D" in your sentence refers to the external world, which would still have three dimensions even if we only had one eye, in which case stereoscopic displays would not be necessary.
If instead you meant holographic-style displays, then nevermind :)
"They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images." I've no knowledge of the field, but I am reminded of Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he state…
Quotes like that are the perennial mottos of cracks and kooks, like the people claiming they invented a "perpetual motion machine" or "cold fusion engine".
It's based on a story-fied version of science (the young rebellious upstart, the established elderly opponent, etc). Science seldom works that way and seldom involved "breakthrou changes". Most of it is incremental work.
3D needs to die http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies
Actually, the convergence problem is theoretically solvable with a light-field projection system. That is, instead of having 2 images that are simply "fed" into each eye but projected onto a flat screen that is not converged with the 3d disparity "information" contained in the images, you have a system where the screen emits a light field that your eyes can focus on at any depth. We already have consumer level light…
Unfortunately, in 3D, the temporal limitations of 24fps become apparent, perhaps again because the visuals start to become real enough that your brain no longer works as hard to synthesize reality. But now if you increase the frame rate, you end up with the first problem again, and maybe even worse—when watching The Hobbit in 48fps 3D, I was painfully aware of every camera movement, no longer feeling like a passive observer hovering in the air. It’s clear that if 3D really is the way things are from here on, many new techniques are needed, from the styles of acting and lighting designs to the way the camera moves and scenes are edited.
I’d guess one compromise would be splitting the difference, 3D projected at 36fps—something tells me that won’t come to pass though, and so maybe indeed 3D never will work…