I dont think they do anything tsaebeht. Its not real 3D, tbh they kind of remaster it for movies so its really not worth redoing for 3d bluray. Maybe animated films do but I havent watched any 3d movie in quite some time. I run close to a 80" screen and am very underwhelmed. I shrunk it down and sat real close one day to compare to a monitor and the 3d effect is non existent.
If you ever played a ps3 game it asks you the size of your display and it gives underwhelming effects so alot of us cheat about screen size. Basically write 300-500" and thats probably real similiar to a 3d movie.
I dont think they do anything tsaebeht. Its not real 3D, tbh they kind of remaster it for movies so its really not worth redoing for 3d bluray. Maybe animated films do but I havent watched any 3d movie in quite some time. I run close to a 80" screen and am very underwhelmed. I shrunk it down and sat real close one day to compare to a monitor and the 3d effect is non existent.
If you ever played a ps3 game it asks you the size of your display and it gives underwhelming effects so alot of us cheat about screen size. Basically write 300-500" and thats probably real similiar to a 3d movie.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Not real 3d? A lot of 3d movies are shot in 3d, and animated ones are rendered from two cameras the same way games are. What's not real about it? They don't have the same depth as we like, but it's still "real"
Not real 3d? A lot of 3d movies are shot in 3d, and animated ones are rendered from two cameras the same way games are. What's not real about it? They don't have the same depth as we like, but it's still "real"
In some scenes 2 feet from camera is closest 2d "highest point" in some scenes its 10 feet away.
Its filmed in 3D but "repurposed" for theatres imo. Could be wrong and its just a wide range or something. Its a bit odd when you compare shots.
They do adjust depth based on the scene, it's just another cinematic technique. For example in "Up", pixar opted to go for greater depth in the action scenes (and the more upbeat ones), and dial it right back in the sad scenes. It's a fairly new tool for most filmmakers, so they're going to be experimenting a bit.
I do wish the "baseline" depth was a little higher, but I can also see it causing more ghosting, as cinemas use passive glasses (which are surprisingly good, but still ghost a little).
They do adjust depth based on the scene, it's just another cinematic technique. For example in "Up", pixar opted to go for greater depth in the action scenes (and the more upbeat ones), and dial it right back in the sad scenes. It's a fairly new tool for most filmmakers, so they're going to be experimenting a bit.
I do wish the "baseline" depth was a little higher, but I can also see it causing more ghosting, as cinemas use passive glasses (which are surprisingly good, but still ghost a little).
In cg it looks fine. I actually think CG 3D looks great in movies. Like CG movies arent mind blowing 3D but I don't have a problem with it and its probably worth the price tag.
---------------
Anywho, If anyones interested Ill talk about why alot of people get nasaeua, strain, etc [which turns into hatred] including myself.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWz4-HlbHSU[/url]
Just so no one thinks I'm nuts. Seriously do this.
Dont play it.
Skip to 1:21. Look at it for 10 seconds.
skip to 1:23. Look at it for 10 seconds
Skip to 1:37. Look at it for 10 seconds
Then skip back to 1:20 and click play.
There is almost no difference between the big dude being 15+ feet from camera not to mention will smith is actually closer but no visual difference. The watch being 1 foot from camera doesn't matter.
Its kind of funny because now at 1:37 is cg and properly scaled. Its actually like 3D gaming, no joke. People say 3D gaming settings is not possible in 3D movies but there ya go. Except, its at 24fps, blurry, going a mile a minute[wonder why people get sick?]. Its so much more convergence/depth then real world scenes. Which is just odd, it almost comes off as a cheesy, hey its 3d oooo. Building that is not really close to camera pop-s out a lot more then watch that was right in front of camera. Not to mention how its got 4x more depth then real world 3d scenes.
It's kind of funny but 3D movies.... are depth of field. I dislike Depth of field especially in Mass Effect games[they paint the walls with it] because... hey we have depth of field....it's 3D. Im kind of famous for my disdain for forced Depth of Field. But seriously, watch that trailer then start up some mass effect conversations. Its the same.
In that men in black trailer it looks like 3D is being used for "Object of interest". *Show's watch* make it popout, everything behind it in depth. Will smith/guy pop out and everything behind it in depth. Distance matters less then importance. Trailers/pausing and staring at a scene in a 3D movie is very disorienting for me. Watching an extended clip can resort to discomfort for me. Watching a movie gives me a bit of strain and nauseau.
I really think all film people are moron's because they think extended use of high depth/ small amounts of convergence resorts in the symptoms. Maybe in a few but no. Its jarring. You play 3d gaming at first and it may take you a week to adapt [Unless your display ghosts like crazy]. A few individuals may be an exception but thats it. Your eyes are constantly refocusing and readjusting for 3D movies which is hilarious since the effect is so low normally.
In cg it looks fine. I actually think CG 3D looks great in movies. Like CG movies arent mind blowing 3D but I don't have a problem with it and its probably worth the price tag.
---------------
Anywho, If anyones interested Ill talk about why alot of people get nasaeua, strain, etc [which turns into hatred] including myself.
" rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">
Just so no one thinks I'm nuts. Seriously do this.
Dont play it.
Skip to 1:21. Look at it for 10 seconds.
skip to 1:23. Look at it for 10 seconds
Skip to 1:37. Look at it for 10 seconds
Then skip back to 1:20 and click play.
There is almost no difference between the big dude being 15+ feet from camera not to mention will smith is actually closer but no visual difference. The watch being 1 foot from camera doesn't matter.
Its kind of funny because now at 1:37 is cg and properly scaled. Its actually like 3D gaming, no joke. People say 3D gaming settings is not possible in 3D movies but there ya go. Except, its at 24fps, blurry, going a mile a minute[wonder why people get sick?]. Its so much more convergence/depth then real world scenes. Which is just odd, it almost comes off as a cheesy, hey its 3d oooo. Building that is not really close to camera pop-s out a lot more then watch that was right in front of camera. Not to mention how its got 4x more depth then real world 3d scenes.
It's kind of funny but 3D movies.... are depth of field. I dislike Depth of field especially in Mass Effect games[they paint the walls with it] because... hey we have depth of field....it's 3D. Im kind of famous for my disdain for forced Depth of Field. But seriously, watch that trailer then start up some mass effect conversations. Its the same.
In that men in black trailer it looks like 3D is being used for "Object of interest". *Show's watch* make it popout, everything behind it in depth. Will smith/guy pop out and everything behind it in depth. Distance matters less then importance. Trailers/pausing and staring at a scene in a 3D movie is very disorienting for me. Watching an extended clip can resort to discomfort for me. Watching a movie gives me a bit of strain and nauseau.
I really think all film people are moron's because they think extended use of high depth/ small amounts of convergence resorts in the symptoms. Maybe in a few but no. Its jarring. You play 3d gaming at first and it may take you a week to adapt [Unless your display ghosts like crazy]. A few individuals may be an exception but thats it. Your eyes are constantly refocusing and readjusting for 3D movies which is hilarious since the effect is so low normally.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
[quote="eqzitara"]It's kind of funny but 3D movies.... are depth of field. I dislike Depth of field especially in Mass Effect games because... hey we have depth of field....it's 3D.
[/quote]Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding depth of field. The purpose of DOF is not to simulate three dimensions. The purpose is recreate a camera lens effect, by mimicking the way your peripheral vision works.
When DOF is is used in photographs, it's not there to make the scene look 3D. It's there to isolate certain elements and draw the eye to them. It does by simulating the blurriness of peripheral vision (which is totally unrelated to depth perception). Because the effect originated on cameras, it's tied to the depth of objects - but depth is not its primary concern. It's first and foremost an artistic tool that helps in creating a satisfying composition.
When you play a game in 3D vision without DOF, every single element is very sharp, and you can look at everything freely. If the artist doesn't guide your eye to certain areas, the scene will feel unstructured and messy. So, the artist has various tools to guide your eye to certain areas: by making certain objects brighter or more animated, by desaturating background elements, by using vivid colours on certain elements......and/or by employing a DOF effect.
Again, DOF is an artistic effect that simulates peripheral vision. Its purpose is not to simulate 3D reality, but to use an artistic trick to draw the eye from the background into the foreground, or vice versa. This is every bit as relevant in a 3D game as it is in a 2D one.
Because it's an artistic effect and is inherently unrealistic, it's appropriate in atmospheric games like Mass Effect that are quite artistically driven. It'd be less appropriate in a game like ARMA that tries to instill a sense of realism.
eqzitara said:It's kind of funny but 3D movies.... are depth of field. I dislike Depth of field especially in Mass Effect games because... hey we have depth of field....it's 3D.
Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding depth of field. The purpose of DOF is not to simulate three dimensions. The purpose is recreate a camera lens effect, by mimicking the way your peripheral vision works.
When DOF is is used in photographs, it's not there to make the scene look 3D. It's there to isolate certain elements and draw the eye to them. It does by simulating the blurriness of peripheral vision (which is totally unrelated to depth perception). Because the effect originated on cameras, it's tied to the depth of objects - but depth is not its primary concern. It's first and foremost an artistic tool that helps in creating a satisfying composition.
When you play a game in 3D vision without DOF, every single element is very sharp, and you can look at everything freely. If the artist doesn't guide your eye to certain areas, the scene will feel unstructured and messy. So, the artist has various tools to guide your eye to certain areas: by making certain objects brighter or more animated, by desaturating background elements, by using vivid colours on certain elements......and/or by employing a DOF effect.
Again, DOF is an artistic effect that simulates peripheral vision. Its purpose is not to simulate 3D reality, but to use an artistic trick to draw the eye from the background into the foreground, or vice versa. This is every bit as relevant in a 3D game as it is in a 2D one.
Because it's an artistic effect and is inherently unrealistic, it's appropriate in atmospheric games like Mass Effect that are quite artistically driven. It'd be less appropriate in a game like ARMA that tries to instill a sense of realism.
@Volnaiskra
I know how depth of field works...... its best way I can word the "filming style(?)"Its filmed similiar to it. I literally explain what depth of field is underneath.
Instead of sharpness it uses convergence.
Instead of blurriness it uses depth.
Depth of field, is up to the users taste but many people dislike it. Which is why its an option and its certainly not done just for 3D gamers.
I make comparisons to depth of field being 3D because thats how video games often use it. Depth of field is blurred based on either importance or distance[which is like 3d]. [url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/578212/2/stock-photo-578212-locker-row-2.jpg[/url]
@pirateguybrush
In 2013 almost half the movies were done in post.
@Volnaiskra
I know how depth of field works...... its best way I can word the "filming style(?)"Its filmed similiar to it. I literally explain what depth of field is underneath.
Instead of sharpness it uses convergence.
Instead of blurriness it uses depth.
Depth of field, is up to the users taste but many people dislike it. Which is why its an option and its certainly not done just for 3D gamers.
I make comparisons to depth of field being 3D because thats how video games often use it. Depth of field is blurred based on either importance or distance[which is like 3d]. http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/578212/2/stock-photo-578212-locker-row-2.jpg
@pirateguybrush
In 2013 almost half the movies were done in post.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Well, I was responding to your "hey we have depth of field....it's 3D. " statement, which suggests that you were missing the point.
Yes, it's an acquired taste, and not everyone likes it. But whether it should be used or not has nothing at all to do with whether a game is 3D or not.
Well, I was responding to your "hey we have depth of field....it's 3D. " statement, which suggests that you were missing the point.
Yes, it's an acquired taste, and not everyone likes it. But whether it should be used or not has nothing at all to do with whether a game is 3D or not.
[url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/578212/2/stock-photo-578212-locker-row-2.jpg[/url]
I will admit poor choice of words but many games do you use it like that. I kind of bled into a different rant. Blurring based on Z/distance. I think its called a shallow focus(?)
I think its called a deep focus(?) That is much different since it actually bothers a large group of people in 2D/3D because engines such as UE3 do not blur based on distance especially in conversations. So an object that is out of focus in front of camera is blurred equally to an object out of focus a mountains range away sometimes more so. Deep focus is fine as an artist taste in pictures/art but forcing it on a user is something you shouldnt do in anything in motion just because the human eye doesnt work that way.
I will admit poor choice of words but many games do you use it like that. I kind of bled into a different rant. Blurring based on Z/distance. I think its called a shallow focus(?)
I think its called a deep focus(?) That is much different since it actually bothers a large group of people in 2D/3D because engines such as UE3 do not blur based on distance especially in conversations. So an object that is out of focus in front of camera is blurred equally to an object out of focus a mountains range away sometimes more so. Deep focus is fine as an artist taste in pictures/art but forcing it on a user is something you shouldnt do in anything in motion just because the human eye doesnt work that way.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
The main problem is no one checks not to mention rarely is a blockbuster/non cg movie not done in post. Well maybe it will change in late 2013/2014 but I think main problem with 3D is the popular titles that people go to see are generally the post converted ones. Hopefully it will change because more and more people are outspoken about 3D movies being crap.
CG/Made for 3D movies [Like they have 3d in name or only exist cause 3D does] are basically the only non-post in 2013 so far. I honestly haven't payed attention to the feedback about it but I know The hobbit was filmed at 48fps [no idea about 3d blu-ray. Maybe(?) at 720p) and wasnt done in post.
[url]http://realorfake3d.com/[/url]
Makes it look like things will change but I have no idea. I agree though not post is quite good but amount of blockbusters using it are not many. Tbh, I often forget that there is a post/not post just because everytime I try a movie its post. It always felt like I had to go out of my way to see one. Maybe people are going to wise up since those Resident Evil movies only did well because it wasnt done in post. I could of sworn it was on its last limb before it went 3D.
The main problem is no one checks not to mention rarely is a blockbuster/non cg movie not done in post. Well maybe it will change in late 2013/2014 but I think main problem with 3D is the popular titles that people go to see are generally the post converted ones. Hopefully it will change because more and more people are outspoken about 3D movies being crap.
CG/Made for 3D movies [Like they have 3d in name or only exist cause 3D does] are basically the only non-post in 2013 so far. I honestly haven't payed attention to the feedback about it but I know The hobbit was filmed at 48fps [no idea about 3d blu-ray. Maybe(?) at 720p) and wasnt done in post.
http://realorfake3d.com/
Makes it look like things will change but I have no idea. I agree though not post is quite good but amount of blockbusters using it are not many. Tbh, I often forget that there is a post/not post just because everytime I try a movie its post. It always felt like I had to go out of my way to see one. Maybe people are going to wise up since those Resident Evil movies only did well because it wasnt done in post. I could of sworn it was on its last limb before it went 3D.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Is it really cost? Why would Warner bros/ sony/ fox have issues getting 3D camera's? I always thought it was directors set in there ways [like 24hz.] I dont really know enough about 3D films to disagree but it just seems odd.
Well I hope 24hz goes up too. Ive NEVER had any visual issues with 3D besides when I have allergies and get dry eye [Need to blink more and no moisture though eye drops will clear that up]. But I had a lot of eye strain watching 3D movies and I could never pin point why as a 3D noob. Though I learned a long time ago, it was a major issue for me for a long time.
Is it really cost? Why would Warner bros/ sony/ fox have issues getting 3D camera's? I always thought it was directors set in there ways [like 24hz.] I dont really know enough about 3D films to disagree but it just seems odd.
Well I hope 24hz goes up too. Ive NEVER had any visual issues with 3D besides when I have allergies and get dry eye [Need to blink more and no moisture though eye drops will clear that up]. But I had a lot of eye strain watching 3D movies and I could never pin point why as a 3D noob. Though I learned a long time ago, it was a major issue for me for a long time.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
If you ever played a ps3 game it asks you the size of your display and it gives underwhelming effects so alot of us cheat about screen size. Basically write 300-500" and thats probably real similiar to a 3d movie.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Its filmed in 3D but "repurposed" for theatres imo. Could be wrong and its just a wide range or something. Its a bit odd when you compare shots.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I do wish the "baseline" depth was a little higher, but I can also see it causing more ghosting, as cinemas use passive glasses (which are surprisingly good, but still ghost a little).
---------------
Anywho, If anyones interested Ill talk about why alot of people get nasaeua, strain, etc [which turns into hatred] including myself.
" rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">
Just so no one thinks I'm nuts. Seriously do this.
Dont play it.
Skip to 1:21. Look at it for 10 seconds.
skip to 1:23. Look at it for 10 seconds
Skip to 1:37. Look at it for 10 seconds
Then skip back to 1:20 and click play.
There is almost no difference between the big dude being 15+ feet from camera not to mention will smith is actually closer but no visual difference. The watch being 1 foot from camera doesn't matter.
Its kind of funny because now at 1:37 is cg and properly scaled. Its actually like 3D gaming, no joke. People say 3D gaming settings is not possible in 3D movies but there ya go. Except, its at 24fps, blurry, going a mile a minute[wonder why people get sick?]. Its so much more convergence/depth then real world scenes. Which is just odd, it almost comes off as a cheesy, hey its 3d oooo. Building that is not really close to camera pop-s out a lot more then watch that was right in front of camera. Not to mention how its got 4x more depth then real world 3d scenes.
It's kind of funny but 3D movies.... are depth of field. I dislike Depth of field especially in Mass Effect games[they paint the walls with it] because... hey we have depth of field....it's 3D. Im kind of famous for my disdain for forced Depth of Field. But seriously, watch that trailer then start up some mass effect conversations. Its the same.
In that men in black trailer it looks like 3D is being used for "Object of interest". *Show's watch* make it popout, everything behind it in depth. Will smith/guy pop out and everything behind it in depth. Distance matters less then importance. Trailers/pausing and staring at a scene in a 3D movie is very disorienting for me. Watching an extended clip can resort to discomfort for me. Watching a movie gives me a bit of strain and nauseau.
I really think all film people are moron's because they think extended use of high depth/ small amounts of convergence resorts in the symptoms. Maybe in a few but no. Its jarring. You play 3d gaming at first and it may take you a week to adapt [Unless your display ghosts like crazy]. A few individuals may be an exception but thats it. Your eyes are constantly refocusing and readjusting for 3D movies which is hilarious since the effect is so low normally.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
When DOF is is used in photographs, it's not there to make the scene look 3D. It's there to isolate certain elements and draw the eye to them. It does by simulating the blurriness of peripheral vision (which is totally unrelated to depth perception). Because the effect originated on cameras, it's tied to the depth of objects - but depth is not its primary concern. It's first and foremost an artistic tool that helps in creating a satisfying composition.
When you play a game in 3D vision without DOF, every single element is very sharp, and you can look at everything freely. If the artist doesn't guide your eye to certain areas, the scene will feel unstructured and messy. So, the artist has various tools to guide your eye to certain areas: by making certain objects brighter or more animated, by desaturating background elements, by using vivid colours on certain elements......and/or by employing a DOF effect.
Again, DOF is an artistic effect that simulates peripheral vision. Its purpose is not to simulate 3D reality, but to use an artistic trick to draw the eye from the background into the foreground, or vice versa. This is every bit as relevant in a 3D game as it is in a 2D one.
Because it's an artistic effect and is inherently unrealistic, it's appropriate in atmospheric games like Mass Effect that are quite artistically driven. It'd be less appropriate in a game like ARMA that tries to instill a sense of realism.
I know how depth of field works...... its best way I can word the "filming style(?)"Its filmed similiar to it. I literally explain what depth of field is underneath.
Instead of sharpness it uses convergence.
Instead of blurriness it uses depth.
Depth of field, is up to the users taste but many people dislike it. Which is why its an option and its certainly not done just for 3D gamers.
I make comparisons to depth of field being 3D because thats how video games often use it. Depth of field is blurred based on either importance or distance[which is like 3d]. http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/578212/2/stock-photo-578212-locker-row-2.jpg
@pirateguybrush
In 2013 almost half the movies were done in post.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Yes, it's an acquired taste, and not everyone likes it. But whether it should be used or not has nothing at all to do with whether a game is 3D or not.
I will admit poor choice of words but many games do you use it like that. I kind of bled into a different rant. Blurring based on Z/distance. I think its called a shallow focus(?)
I think its called a deep focus(?) That is much different since it actually bothers a large group of people in 2D/3D because engines such as UE3 do not blur based on distance especially in conversations. So an object that is out of focus in front of camera is blurred equally to an object out of focus a mountains range away sometimes more so. Deep focus is fine as an artist taste in pictures/art but forcing it on a user is something you shouldnt do in anything in motion just because the human eye doesnt work that way.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Post-converted 3d movies are crap.
This thread is diverging in several directions at once.
CG/Made for 3D movies [Like they have 3d in name or only exist cause 3D does] are basically the only non-post in 2013 so far. I honestly haven't payed attention to the feedback about it but I know The hobbit was filmed at 48fps [no idea about 3d blu-ray. Maybe(?) at 720p) and wasnt done in post.
http://realorfake3d.com/
Makes it look like things will change but I have no idea. I agree though not post is quite good but amount of blockbusters using it are not many. Tbh, I often forget that there is a post/not post just because everytime I try a movie its post. It always felt like I had to go out of my way to see one. Maybe people are going to wise up since those Resident Evil movies only did well because it wasnt done in post. I could of sworn it was on its last limb before it went 3D.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Well I hope 24hz goes up too. Ive NEVER had any visual issues with 3D besides when I have allergies and get dry eye [Need to blink more and no moisture though eye drops will clear that up]. But I had a lot of eye strain watching 3D movies and I could never pin point why as a 3D noob. Though I learned a long time ago, it was a major issue for me for a long time.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com