yeah.. this is deffinatley NOT the true stereoscopic trailer. If you pause by pressing space-bar, you can see the cardboard cut-out effect pretty clearly. I'm actually glad, because I was afraid the 3D blu-ray of this would lack depth like this trailer. Knowing it's a convert gives me hope that the final release will be much better.
yeah.. this is deffinatley NOT the true stereoscopic trailer. If you pause by pressing space-bar, you can see the cardboard cut-out effect pretty clearly. I'm actually glad, because I was afraid the 3D blu-ray of this would lack depth like this trailer. Knowing it's a convert gives me hope that the final release will be much better.
This Trailer is true stereoscopic as far as I can see. I have seen "Clash of the Titans 3D" /thumbsdown.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsdown:' /> last weekend so I know what's a conversion and whats not.
The scenes of this trailer are all well naturally shaped and without depth errors. Ok, depth is a bit low and the wide-angle-landscape-scenes seem to be 2D only.
But when you make a movie for the cinema, you have to calibrate your camera for the cinema. Thats why depth seems so low on small screens. When you play this trailer on your TV-screen(let assume 40 inches) and you sit just 4-5 feet in front of it, you will have cinema-like conditions and you will see that there is no cardboard-shaping ;) .
This Trailer is true stereoscopic as far as I can see. I have seen "Clash of the Titans 3D" /thumbsdown.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsdown:' /> last weekend so I know what's a conversion and whats not.
The scenes of this trailer are all well naturally shaped and without depth errors. Ok, depth is a bit low and the wide-angle-landscape-scenes seem to be 2D only.
But when you make a movie for the cinema, you have to calibrate your camera for the cinema. Thats why depth seems so low on small screens. When you play this trailer on your TV-screen(let assume 40 inches) and you sit just 4-5 feet in front of it, you will have cinema-like conditions and you will see that there is no cardboard-shaping ;) .
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1052871' date='May 9 2010, 07:03 PM'][b]Finally I tried to max out the quality of the Avatar-Trailer and this is now the result:[/b]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2504017/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part1.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250401....part1.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2503176/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part2.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250317....part2.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502734/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part3.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250273....part3.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502848/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part4.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250284....part4.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502897/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part5.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250289....part5.rar.html[/url][/quote]
Thanks, the video quality is really good.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1052871' date='May 9 2010, 07:03 PM']Finally I tried to max out the quality of the Avatar-Trailer and this is now the result:
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1053580' date='May 10 2010, 11:04 PM']From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.[/quote]
NO! If x and y increase the z axis also has to increase. If you scale something up, there is no other around it than scaling all x, y and z axis.
If the depth would be the same the wall of the image you posted in the back of the monitor has to be the same z position as it is in reality. This is not the case. If you look at it relativly, you're right. Relative proportions stay the same. But if you look at it absolutely the depth has descreased inside the monitor. And this is also happening here. In cinema the "roundness" of an object will be same as on a TV screen, but it will be perceived with much greater depth.
Once again, THIS IS NO CONVERSION! I just watched the trailer again on my projecition screen and I think the depth is actually quite good. Of course you will have a very small comfort area but this also has it's advantages.
[quote]After watching the Avatar trailer, i was not that impressed with it, so yesterday i decided to go out and buy Avatar on Blu-Ray, and i did not know that i came with a DVD version aswell, so the first thing i done was fired up Power Dvd 10, and used the 2d - 3d Conversion and i must say that this was much better quality 3d than the trailer[/quote]
You're joking right? The depth placement of those live conversions is always poor. I've never seen a good live 3D conversion in my life. There are some Pulfrich shots that may work but in general it doesn't work and mostly the depth is placed totally wrong or simply inverted (through inversed use of Pulfrich). This only hurts your eyes.
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1053580' date='May 10 2010, 11:04 PM']From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
NO! If x and y increase the z axis also has to increase. If you scale something up, there is no other around it than scaling all x, y and z axis.
If the depth would be the same the wall of the image you posted in the back of the monitor has to be the same z position as it is in reality. This is not the case. If you look at it relativly, you're right. Relative proportions stay the same. But if you look at it absolutely the depth has descreased inside the monitor. And this is also happening here. In cinema the "roundness" of an object will be same as on a TV screen, but it will be perceived with much greater depth.
Once again, THIS IS NO CONVERSION! I just watched the trailer again on my projecition screen and I think the depth is actually quite good. Of course you will have a very small comfort area but this also has it's advantages.
After watching the Avatar trailer, i was not that impressed with it, so yesterday i decided to go out and buy Avatar on Blu-Ray, and i did not know that i came with a DVD version aswell, so the first thing i done was fired up Power Dvd 10, and used the 2d - 3d Conversion and i must say that this was much better quality 3d than the trailer
You're joking right? The depth placement of those live conversions is always poor. I've never seen a good live 3D conversion in my life. There are some Pulfrich shots that may work but in general it doesn't work and mostly the depth is placed totally wrong or simply inverted (through inversed use of Pulfrich). This only hurts your eyes.
I have to agree with Costa. This is not a conversion! (and Flint: thanks for the high quality vid by the way!)
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
I have to agree with Costa. This is not a conversion! (and Flint: thanks for the high quality vid by the way!)
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
[quote name='Likay' post='1053944' date='May 11 2010, 09:05 AM']I have to agree with Costa. This is not a conversion! (and Flint: thanks for the high quality vid by the way!)
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.[/quote]
I saw Avatar 3D in a normal theater and in Imax and I've been working professionally with stereoscopy with my 3D apps for about 6 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm just pointing out that when you pause the trailer at any point, it looks like layers of cardboard cut-outs. They're very good quality cut-outs, but cut-outs none the less. And don't you think it's a little fishy that the only way to get the "true stereoscopic trailer" is through some random file hosting site, or youtube, and not the official site? You'd think Mr. Cameron would do everything in his power to give us the real thing if it existed, right?
[quote name='Likay' post='1053944' date='May 11 2010, 09:05 AM']I have to agree with Costa. This is not a conversion! (and Flint: thanks for the high quality vid by the way!)
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
I saw Avatar 3D in a normal theater and in Imax and I've been working professionally with stereoscopy with my 3D apps for about 6 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm just pointing out that when you pause the trailer at any point, it looks like layers of cardboard cut-outs. They're very good quality cut-outs, but cut-outs none the less. And don't you think it's a little fishy that the only way to get the "true stereoscopic trailer" is through some random file hosting site, or youtube, and not the official site? You'd think Mr. Cameron would do everything in his power to give us the real thing if it existed, right?
Actually no, I don't think Mr Cameron really would want this particular trailer to be widely broadcasted.
This 3D trailer was rushed, you can clearly see it. Some of the shots show obvious vertical separation (especially visible in the close-up "video log" scene) or have colour grading variations (obvious in the shadows on Quarrich neck on the shot where he trains with the weights).
Actually no, I don't think Mr Cameron really would want this particular trailer to be widely broadcasted.
This 3D trailer was rushed, you can clearly see it. Some of the shots show obvious vertical separation (especially visible in the close-up "video log" scene) or have colour grading variations (obvious in the shadows on Quarrich neck on the shot where he trains with the weights).
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
The separation could surely be higher in some occasions but try this: If you see a scene with a "cutout" but where the figure is suppoused to have depth: Adjust horisontal parallax until something in the figure is at screendepth. Hold your finger against the monitor and follow the figure. You should see that even if it looks "cardboarded" it has depth. I don't know why it's experienced like this but check. It's true stereoscopy. (unless in some scenes where the parallax only is shifted). As Blackshark says and i expressed in a previous post i think that the man who made the trailer really haven't choosed the best parts, more like the opposite. But a conversion? I don't think those can be this convincing yet.
The separation could surely be higher in some occasions but try this: If you see a scene with a "cutout" but where the figure is suppoused to have depth: Adjust horisontal parallax until something in the figure is at screendepth. Hold your finger against the monitor and follow the figure. You should see that even if it looks "cardboarded" it has depth. I don't know why it's experienced like this but check. It's true stereoscopy. (unless in some scenes where the parallax only is shifted). As Blackshark says and i expressed in a previous post i think that the man who made the trailer really haven't choosed the best parts, more like the opposite. But a conversion? I don't think those can be this convincing yet.
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1053580' date='May 11 2010, 01:04 AM']From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.[/quote]
Your example picture isn't a good source cause the pictures in the samsung-displays seem to have a stronger separation as they have their zero-parallax at the depth of the samsung-display.
I just took a 3D shot and copied it smaller and smaller onto it:
[url="http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6080/burnoutparadiseimagesiz.jpg"][img]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6080/burnoutparadiseimagesiz.jpg[/img][/url]
You can see: The smaller the picture -> the smaller is the separation-> the harder it is for the eye to recognise depth-differences.
Just look at the buildings behind the "No Parking"-Sign. In the big picture you can clearly see the depth-differences between the roofs. But just in the next smaller picture - can you really see a clear difference in depth between the roofs?
There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1053580' date='May 11 2010, 01:04 AM']From my own experimentation, the size of the screen is irrelevant to the amount of depth. Whether the image is made for imax or a monitor, the amount of depth is dependent on what angles are captured in order to get the z-axis. The x and y axis have nothing to do with the amount of depth. The proof of this is the fact that you can have 3D images within 3D images within 3D images, and no matter how small and low-res the image gets, you still get the same amount of depth. I threw together a pin-up in Poser to better explain, see below.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
Your example picture isn't a good source cause the pictures in the samsung-displays seem to have a stronger separation as they have their zero-parallax at the depth of the samsung-display.
I just took a 3D shot and copied it smaller and smaller onto it:
You can see: The smaller the picture -> the smaller is the separation-> the harder it is for the eye to recognise depth-differences.
Just look at the buildings behind the "No Parking"-Sign. In the big picture you can clearly see the depth-differences between the roofs. But just in the next smaller picture - can you really see a clear difference in depth between the roofs?
There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 01:27 PM']There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.[/quote]
I still have trouble trying to think of this when it's a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing angle or a 65" TV that nearly fills your viewing angle. Obviously if it fills less of a viewing angle it's going to look smaller, but as far as sitting closer to a smaller display that fills an equal amount of viewing I just don't grasp why it makes a difference.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 01:27 PM']There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
I still have trouble trying to think of this when it's a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing angle or a 65" TV that nearly fills your viewing angle. Obviously if it fills less of a viewing angle it's going to look smaller, but as far as sitting closer to a smaller display that fills an equal amount of viewing I just don't grasp why it makes a difference.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 08:27 PM']There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.[/quote]
Yes, exactly. But it's not only about the filling of the viewing angle. It is also about the distance to the screen. After that logic the depth would increase if I go closer to the screen. That's not the case. Of couse objects appear significantly bigger on a big screen. People seem like giants. On a normal screen they have the seperation of a giant but only displayed on a size of a normal person. Therefore there is less perceived depth.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 08:27 PM']There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
Yes, exactly. But it's not only about the filling of the viewing angle. It is also about the distance to the screen. After that logic the depth would increase if I go closer to the screen. That's not the case. Of couse objects appear significantly bigger on a big screen. People seem like giants. On a normal screen they have the seperation of a giant but only displayed on a size of a normal person. Therefore there is less perceived depth.
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
The scenes of this trailer are all well naturally shaped and without depth errors. Ok, depth is a bit low and the wide-angle-landscape-scenes seem to be 2D only.
But when you make a movie for the cinema, you have to calibrate your camera for the cinema. Thats why depth seems so low on small screens. When you play this trailer on your TV-screen(let assume 40 inches) and you sit just 4-5 feet in front of it, you will have cinema-like conditions and you will see that there is no cardboard-shaping ;) .
The scenes of this trailer are all well naturally shaped and without depth errors. Ok, depth is a bit low and the wide-angle-landscape-scenes seem to be 2D only.
But when you make a movie for the cinema, you have to calibrate your camera for the cinema. Thats why depth seems so low on small screens. When you play this trailer on your TV-screen(let assume 40 inches) and you sit just 4-5 feet in front of it, you will have cinema-like conditions and you will see that there is no cardboard-shaping ;) .
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2504017/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part1.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250401....part1.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2503176/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part2.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250317....part2.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502734/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part3.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250273....part3.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502848/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part4.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250284....part4.rar.html[/url]
[url="http://www.file-upload.net/download-2502897/Avatar3D-Trailer_Parallel.part5.rar.html"]http://www.file-upload.net/download-250289....part5.rar.html[/url][/quote]
Thanks, the video quality is really good.
http://www.file-upload.net/download-250401....part1.rar.html
http://www.file-upload.net/download-250317....part2.rar.html
http://www.file-upload.net/download-250273....part3.rar.html
http://www.file-upload.net/download-250284....part4.rar.html
http://www.file-upload.net/download-250289....part5.rar.html
Thanks, the video quality is really good.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.[/quote]
NO! If x and y increase the z axis also has to increase. If you scale something up, there is no other around it than scaling all x, y and z axis.
If the depth would be the same the wall of the image you posted in the back of the monitor has to be the same z position as it is in reality. This is not the case. If you look at it relativly, you're right. Relative proportions stay the same. But if you look at it absolutely the depth has descreased inside the monitor. And this is also happening here. In cinema the "roundness" of an object will be same as on a TV screen, but it will be perceived with much greater depth.
Once again, THIS IS NO CONVERSION! I just watched the trailer again on my projecition screen and I think the depth is actually quite good. Of course you will have a very small comfort area but this also has it's advantages.
[quote]After watching the Avatar trailer, i was not that impressed with it, so yesterday i decided to go out and buy Avatar on Blu-Ray, and i did not know that i came with a DVD version aswell, so the first thing i done was fired up Power Dvd 10, and used the 2d - 3d Conversion and i must say that this was much better quality 3d than the trailer[/quote]
You're joking right? The depth placement of those live conversions is always poor. I've never seen a good live 3D conversion in my life. There are some Pulfrich shots that may work but in general it doesn't work and mostly the depth is placed totally wrong or simply inverted (through inversed use of Pulfrich). This only hurts your eyes.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
NO! If x and y increase the z axis also has to increase. If you scale something up, there is no other around it than scaling all x, y and z axis.
If the depth would be the same the wall of the image you posted in the back of the monitor has to be the same z position as it is in reality. This is not the case. If you look at it relativly, you're right. Relative proportions stay the same. But if you look at it absolutely the depth has descreased inside the monitor. And this is also happening here. In cinema the "roundness" of an object will be same as on a TV screen, but it will be perceived with much greater depth.
Once again, THIS IS NO CONVERSION! I just watched the trailer again on my projecition screen and I think the depth is actually quite good. Of course you will have a very small comfort area but this also has it's advantages.
You're joking right? The depth placement of those live conversions is always poor. I've never seen a good live 3D conversion in my life. There are some Pulfrich shots that may work but in general it doesn't work and mostly the depth is placed totally wrong or simply inverted (through inversed use of Pulfrich). This only hurts your eyes.
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.[/quote]
I saw Avatar 3D in a normal theater and in Imax and I've been working professionally with stereoscopy with my 3D apps for about 6 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm just pointing out that when you pause the trailer at any point, it looks like layers of cardboard cut-outs. They're very good quality cut-outs, but cut-outs none the less. And don't you think it's a little fishy that the only way to get the "true stereoscopic trailer" is through some random file hosting site, or youtube, and not the official site? You'd think Mr. Cameron would do everything in his power to give us the real thing if it existed, right?
@joe-bushido
If you want to see real stereoscopy then see "Avatar" or "How to train your dragon" for examples. If you want all the bad examples of conversions: Go watch "Clash of the Titans" (for educational purposes only). After that it's pretty clear how conversions vs real stereoscopy look if there are any doubts.
I saw Avatar 3D in a normal theater and in Imax and I've been working professionally with stereoscopy with my 3D apps for about 6 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm just pointing out that when you pause the trailer at any point, it looks like layers of cardboard cut-outs. They're very good quality cut-outs, but cut-outs none the less. And don't you think it's a little fishy that the only way to get the "true stereoscopic trailer" is through some random file hosting site, or youtube, and not the official site? You'd think Mr. Cameron would do everything in his power to give us the real thing if it existed, right?
This 3D trailer was rushed, you can clearly see it. Some of the shots show obvious vertical separation (especially visible in the close-up "video log" scene) or have colour grading variations (obvious in the shadows on Quarrich neck on the shot where he trains with the weights).
This 3D trailer was rushed, you can clearly see it. Some of the shots show obvious vertical separation (especially visible in the close-up "video log" scene) or have colour grading variations (obvious in the shadows on Quarrich neck on the shot where he trains with the weights).
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
Thank you for bringing back your 3d Owl dude, I know he's been back for quite sime time, but that was something that needed to be addressed....
That dude is epic
Thank you for bringing back your 3d Owl dude, I know he's been back for quite sime time, but that was something that needed to be addressed....
That dude is epic
Am i the only one who actually thought the other avatar was cool?
Am i the only one who actually thought the other avatar was cool?
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.[/quote]
Your example picture isn't a good source cause the pictures in the samsung-displays seem to have a stronger separation as they have their zero-parallax at the depth of the samsung-display.
I just took a 3D shot and copied it smaller and smaller onto it:
[url="http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6080/burnoutparadiseimagesiz.jpg"][img]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6080/burnoutparadiseimagesiz.jpg[/img][/url]
You can see: The smaller the picture -> the smaller is the separation-> the harder it is for the eye to recognise depth-differences.
Just look at the buildings behind the "No Parking"-Sign. In the big picture you can clearly see the depth-differences between the roofs. But just in the next smaller picture - can you really see a clear difference in depth between the roofs?
There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
If this trailer were true stereoscopic, the depth would be just as good as it was in theater, even if the image resolution was crap. In fact, it almost seems like there's MORE depth on smaller images.
Your example picture isn't a good source cause the pictures in the samsung-displays seem to have a stronger separation as they have their zero-parallax at the depth of the samsung-display.
I just took a 3D shot and copied it smaller and smaller onto it:
You can see: The smaller the picture -> the smaller is the separation-> the harder it is for the eye to recognise depth-differences.
Just look at the buildings behind the "No Parking"-Sign. In the big picture you can clearly see the depth-differences between the roofs. But just in the next smaller picture - can you really see a clear difference in depth between the roofs?
There is definately a difference to sit in front of a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing-ange or to sit in front of a TV that barely takes a third or a quarter of your viewing angle.
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
I still have trouble trying to think of this when it's a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing angle or a 65" TV that nearly fills your viewing angle. Obviously if it fills less of a viewing angle it's going to look smaller, but as far as sitting closer to a smaller display that fills an equal amount of viewing I just don't grasp why it makes a difference.
I still have trouble trying to think of this when it's a 20 meters screen that nearly fills your viewing angle or a 65" TV that nearly fills your viewing angle. Obviously if it fills less of a viewing angle it's going to look smaller, but as far as sitting closer to a smaller display that fills an equal amount of viewing I just don't grasp why it makes a difference.
Yes, exactly. But it's not only about the filling of the viewing angle. It is also about the distance to the screen. After that logic the depth would increase if I go closer to the screen. That's not the case. Of couse objects appear significantly bigger on a big screen. People seem like giants. On a normal screen they have the seperation of a giant but only displayed on a size of a normal person. Therefore there is less perceived depth.
Yes, exactly. But it's not only about the filling of the viewing angle. It is also about the distance to the screen. After that logic the depth would increase if I go closer to the screen. That's not the case. Of couse objects appear significantly bigger on a big screen. People seem like giants. On a normal screen they have the seperation of a giant but only displayed on a size of a normal person. Therefore there is less perceived depth.