Avatar 3d stereoscopic trailer [finally!][+youtube][+1080p]
6 / 6
[quote name='Costa' post='1054072' date='May 11 2010, 01:40 PM']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]
But,... it's 3d? Can't I control depth, making it look like my screen is further away?
[quote name='Costa' post='1054072' date='May 11 2010, 01:40 PM']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.
But,... it's 3d? Can't I control depth, making it look like my screen is further away?
You can control the "horisontal parallax" only beacause the depth is fixed. This pushes or pulls the image (like convergence). When gaming you can adjust the depth to your like while in movies you unfortunately can't. I think Avatar would look great on a small monitor as well. The trailer is mainly a bad choice of scenes. The stereo-3d in avatar is quite neutral and imo this is one thing that makes it so great. It's the first movie i watched which had a relaxed relationship with 3d (instead of those "always into your face" movies). I like popout but it's not the mainpoint of 3d. I want to enter the created world.
You can control the "horisontal parallax" only beacause the depth is fixed. This pushes or pulls the image (like convergence). When gaming you can adjust the depth to your like while in movies you unfortunately can't. I think Avatar would look great on a small monitor as well. The trailer is mainly a bad choice of scenes. The stereo-3d in avatar is quite neutral and imo this is one thing that makes it so great. It's the first movie i watched which had a relaxed relationship with 3d (instead of those "always into your face" movies). I like popout but it's not the mainpoint of 3d. I want to enter the created world.
[quote name='Likay' post='1054117' date='May 11 2010, 11:37 PM']...The stereo-3d in avatar is quite neutral and imo this is one thing that makes it so great. It's the first movie i watched which had a relaxed relationship with 3d (instead of those "always into your face" movies). ...[/quote]
This is completely my opinion /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' /> . Avatar has a natural amount of depth. I'm always trying hard when things are coming out too much on the screen.
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url]
[quote name='Likay' post='1054117' date='May 11 2010, 11:37 PM']...The stereo-3d in avatar is quite neutral and imo this is one thing that makes it so great. It's the first movie i watched which had a relaxed relationship with 3d (instead of those "always into your face" movies). ...
This is completely my opinion /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' /> . Avatar has a natural amount of depth. I'm always trying hard when things are coming out too much on the screen.
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054134' date='May 12 2010, 12:15 AM']I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
That's a good illustration! /thumbsup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsup:' /> So we can clearly see that the 3D changes with monitor size and the viewer distance to the monitor. So to make Avatar impressive You have to have a big screen and sit back in the couch. Both things will tend to eliminate the cardboard cutout look. Anything less than a giant cinema projector screen (~20m) and back row will probably have a little cardboard "effect" (which frankly is a shame for us home users).
Overall I'm just pleased we are finally moving AWAY from those 720*576 interlaced 3D DVD's we had to watch for many years (like Haunted Castle etc). God the sucked compared to these new trailers like Bolt, Avatar. Thank You guys a million!
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054134' date='May 12 2010, 12:15 AM']I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
That's a good illustration! /thumbsup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsup:' /> So we can clearly see that the 3D changes with monitor size and the viewer distance to the monitor. So to make Avatar impressive You have to have a big screen and sit back in the couch. Both things will tend to eliminate the cardboard cutout look. Anything less than a giant cinema projector screen (~20m) and back row will probably have a little cardboard "effect" (which frankly is a shame for us home users).
Overall I'm just pleased we are finally moving AWAY from those 720*576 interlaced 3D DVD's we had to watch for many years (like Haunted Castle etc). God the sucked compared to these new trailers like Bolt, Avatar. Thank You guys a million!
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 12:27 PM']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.
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]
well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D
I still think the depth in this trailer could be a lot better, and I doubt it comes from the official source. I hope Mr.Cameron addresses that issue before releasing the 3D Blu-ray next year.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054061' date='May 11 2010, 12:27 PM']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.
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.
well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D
I still think the depth in this trailer could be a lot better, and I doubt it comes from the official source. I hope Mr.Cameron addresses that issue before releasing the 3D Blu-ray next year.
Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless
Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054134' date='May 11 2010, 03:15 PM']This is completely my opinion /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' /> . Avatar has a natural amount of depth. I'm always trying hard when things are coming out too much on the screen.
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
My problem with this approach is it assumes the 3d image cannot be manipulated. Clearly we cannot manipulate it in the way we can adjust convergence or depth so well in games. You can't reposition the cameras in an already shot movie.
However, you can control where you display the video. It's easy to break apart the left and right frames. You can move the frames up, down, left, right. Pretty much whatever you want to do. This is already available and has been available in nvidia's 3d video player.
So what does this mean? It means if you move the left frame left and the right frame right you can increase depth. Effectively moving the 2d "plane" that everything happens at deeper into the monitor, and since it doesn't shrink that much the perceived size of that screen gets bigger. How do you think those video glasses work that project 1024x768 at 10' as far as what you perceive? Bigger screen further distance. Because it can control what each eye can see, we got that!
So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054134' date='May 11 2010, 03:15 PM']This is completely my opinion /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' /> . Avatar has a natural amount of depth. I'm always trying hard when things are coming out too much on the screen.
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
My problem with this approach is it assumes the 3d image cannot be manipulated. Clearly we cannot manipulate it in the way we can adjust convergence or depth so well in games. You can't reposition the cameras in an already shot movie.
However, you can control where you display the video. It's easy to break apart the left and right frames. You can move the frames up, down, left, right. Pretty much whatever you want to do. This is already available and has been available in nvidia's 3d video player.
So what does this mean? It means if you move the left frame left and the right frame right you can increase depth. Effectively moving the 2d "plane" that everything happens at deeper into the monitor, and since it doesn't shrink that much the perceived size of that screen gets bigger. How do you think those video glasses work that project 1024x768 at 10' as far as what you perceive? Bigger screen further distance. Because it can control what each eye can see, we got that!
So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1054552' date='May 12 2010, 07:51 PM']well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D[/quote]
The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: [url="http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html"]http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html[/url]
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : [url="http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stereoscopy_in_3ds_max_with_stereocam_modifier"]http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier[/url]
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)
[quote name='Amblix' post='1054773' date='May 13 2010, 02:48 AM']Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless[/quote]
This is caused by the giant resolution. I have 2x2,5Ghz here and cpu-usage while playing is around 70-80%. The Nuerburgring-video on the Nvidia-site takes just a bit more - I'm nearly at 100% cpu-usage.
[quote name='vvx' post='1054906' date='May 13 2010, 08:25 AM']So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)[/quote]
This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
[url="http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg"][img]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg[/img][/url]
[quote name='joe-bushido' post='1054552' date='May 12 2010, 07:51 PM']well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D
The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
[quote name='Amblix' post='1054773' date='May 13 2010, 02:48 AM']Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless
This is caused by the giant resolution. I have 2x2,5Ghz here and cpu-usage while playing is around 70-80%. The Nuerburgring-video on the Nvidia-site takes just a bit more - I'm nearly at 100% cpu-usage.
[quote name='vvx' post='1054906' date='May 13 2010, 08:25 AM']So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054994' date='May 13 2010, 04:19 AM']This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
[url="http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg"][img]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
Sure, the "pop-out" affect would probably be completely removed. If I'm sitting 3' away from an lcd how much stuff is there realistically going to be flying 3' in front of my face? When you go to the big screen and are sitting 50' or 100' away from the screen pop-out might place an object 10' away (perceived) from you (for example). If you could copy exactly that experience in your home the object would be 10' away (perceived) as well. If the monitor is 3' away it should be inside the monitor. If the screen is 50' away it should be outside the screen.
The real downside I can see is that in a lot of scenes the main object is at screen depth, and I would guess that's to minimize ghosting. So if you change that you would probably see a lot more ghosting. I can't wait to see some 3d blurays eventually and test it out to see how it plays with different settings.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054994' date='May 13 2010, 04:19 AM']This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
Sure, the "pop-out" affect would probably be completely removed. If I'm sitting 3' away from an lcd how much stuff is there realistically going to be flying 3' in front of my face? When you go to the big screen and are sitting 50' or 100' away from the screen pop-out might place an object 10' away (perceived) from you (for example). If you could copy exactly that experience in your home the object would be 10' away (perceived) as well. If the monitor is 3' away it should be inside the monitor. If the screen is 50' away it should be outside the screen.
The real downside I can see is that in a lot of scenes the main object is at screen depth, and I would guess that's to minimize ghosting. So if you change that you would probably see a lot more ghosting. I can't wait to see some 3d blurays eventually and test it out to see how it plays with different settings.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054994' date='May 13 2010, 03:19 AM']The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: [url="http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html"]http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html[/url]
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : [url="http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stereoscopy_in_3ds_max_with_stereocam_modifier"]http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier[/url]
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)[/quote]
I usually do toe in the camera with close-up, portrait style images. I find it usually gives a better sense of of depth in the parts that matter when distance is not involved. On images that have deep backgrounds, I'll stick with a parallel cam since, in the real world, your line of sight for each eye would be nearly parallel when looking into the distance anyway.
[quote name='Flint Eastwood' post='1054994' date='May 13 2010, 03:19 AM']The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
I usually do toe in the camera with close-up, portrait style images. I find it usually gives a better sense of of depth in the parts that matter when distance is not involved. On images that have deep backgrounds, I'll stick with a parallel cam since, in the real world, your line of sight for each eye would be nearly parallel when looking into the distance anyway.
[quote name='MarkcusD' post='1055734' date='May 14 2010, 12:29 PM']That Nurburgring video is still the best 3D video that I've seen on my 3D Vision system. I still think games look better in 3D.[/quote]
[quote name='MarkcusD' post='1055734' date='May 14 2010, 12:29 PM']That Nurburgring video is still the best 3D video that I've seen on my 3D Vision system. I still think games look better in 3D.
But,... it's 3d? Can't I control depth, making it look like my screen is further away?
But,... it's 3d? Can't I control depth, making it look like my screen is further away?
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.
This is completely my opinion
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url]
This is completely my opinion
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
That's a good illustration!
Overall I'm just pleased we are finally moving AWAY from those 720*576 interlaced 3D DVD's we had to watch for many years (like Haunted Castle etc). God the sucked compared to these new trailers like Bolt, Avatar. Thank You guys a million!
That's a good illustration!
Overall I'm just pleased we are finally moving AWAY from those 720*576 interlaced 3D DVD's we had to watch for many years (like Haunted Castle etc). God the sucked compared to these new trailers like Bolt, Avatar. Thank You guys a million!
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]
well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D
I still think the depth in this trailer could be a lot better, and I doubt it comes from the official source. I hope Mr.Cameron addresses that issue before releasing the 3D Blu-ray next year.
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.
well.. I made that pin-up by rendering a left-image, the orbiting the main camera by 4 degrees on the y-axis to render the right-image. Then copied and scaled each image down into the monitor over and over on each one. Looking at the stereo image without my glasses on, I can see that the separation does change between images, so I'll admit to being wrong here. Still a cool image though.. right? :-D
I still think the depth in this trailer could be a lot better, and I doubt it comes from the official source. I hope Mr.Cameron addresses that issue before releasing the 3D Blu-ray next year.
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
[url="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.jpg"][img]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9467/3dcinematv.th.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
My problem with this approach is it assumes the 3d image cannot be manipulated. Clearly we cannot manipulate it in the way we can adjust convergence or depth so well in games. You can't reposition the cameras in an already shot movie.
However, you can control where you display the video. It's easy to break apart the left and right frames. You can move the frames up, down, left, right. Pretty much whatever you want to do. This is already available and has been available in nvidia's 3d video player.
So what does this mean? It means if you move the left frame left and the right frame right you can increase depth. Effectively moving the 2d "plane" that everything happens at deeper into the monitor, and since it doesn't shrink that much the perceived size of that screen gets bigger. How do you think those video glasses work that project 1024x768 at 10' as far as what you perceive? Bigger screen further distance. Because it can control what each eye can see, we got that!
So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
[url="http://img97.imageshack.us/i/3dtest.jpg/"][img]http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5492/3dtest.th.jpg[/img][/url]
I made this little schematic sketch to show why depth on a small monitor won't be this big as on a big screen. Maybe you can move away from the screen to get more depth but you need good eyes to see all the fine details on a smaller screen.
My problem with this approach is it assumes the 3d image cannot be manipulated. Clearly we cannot manipulate it in the way we can adjust convergence or depth so well in games. You can't reposition the cameras in an already shot movie.
However, you can control where you display the video. It's easy to break apart the left and right frames. You can move the frames up, down, left, right. Pretty much whatever you want to do. This is already available and has been available in nvidia's 3d video player.
So what does this mean? It means if you move the left frame left and the right frame right you can increase depth. Effectively moving the 2d "plane" that everything happens at deeper into the monitor, and since it doesn't shrink that much the perceived size of that screen gets bigger. How do you think those video glasses work that project 1024x768 at 10' as far as what you perceive? Bigger screen further distance. Because it can control what each eye can see, we got that!
So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: [url="http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html"]http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html[/url]
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : [url="http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stereoscopy_in_3ds_max_with_stereocam_modifier"]http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier[/url]
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)
[quote name='Amblix' post='1054773' date='May 13 2010, 02:48 AM']Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless[/quote]
This is caused by the giant resolution. I have 2x2,5Ghz here and cpu-usage while playing is around 70-80%. The Nuerburgring-video on the Nvidia-site takes just a bit more - I'm nearly at 100% cpu-usage.
[quote name='vvx' post='1054906' date='May 13 2010, 08:25 AM']So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)[/quote]
This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
[url="http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg"][img]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg[/img][/url]
The image is pretty cool, thats true ;) But it seems that your pictures have a slight vertical displacement. Did you toe-in the cameras (like eyes would do)?
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)
[quote name='Amblix' post='1054773' date='May 13 2010, 02:48 AM']Im having trouble playing these at a decent frame rate. It studders terribly on a gtx 260/amd dual x2 2.2ghz and 4 gig ram. Is this a hardware or codec issue? The first HTTYD trailer plays flawless
This is caused by the giant resolution. I have 2x2,5Ghz here and cpu-usage while playing is around 70-80%. The Nuerburgring-video on the Nvidia-site takes just a bit more - I'm nearly at 100% cpu-usage.
[quote name='vvx' post='1054906' date='May 13 2010, 08:25 AM']So if you move the left frame left and the right frame right the stars in your pic should be further from the viewer appearing. (The whole screen will appear to be further away, and larger than it really is.)
This is true. But you only shift the depth into the screen. Things that popped out are nearly at screen depth then. You don't change the distance between the nearest and the farthest object.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
Desktop-PC
i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
[url="http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg"][img]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5603/shiftparallax.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]
Sure, the "pop-out" affect would probably be completely removed. If I'm sitting 3' away from an lcd how much stuff is there realistically going to be flying 3' in front of my face? When you go to the big screen and are sitting 50' or 100' away from the screen pop-out might place an object 10' away (perceived) from you (for example). If you could copy exactly that experience in your home the object would be 10' away (perceived) as well. If the monitor is 3' away it should be inside the monitor. If the screen is 50' away it should be outside the screen.
The real downside I can see is that in a lot of scenes the main object is at screen depth, and I would guess that's to minimize ghosting. So if you change that you would probably see a lot more ghosting. I can't wait to see some 3d blurays eventually and test it out to see how it plays with different settings.
Shifted ZeroParallax to Eye and Stone:
Sure, the "pop-out" affect would probably be completely removed. If I'm sitting 3' away from an lcd how much stuff is there realistically going to be flying 3' in front of my face? When you go to the big screen and are sitting 50' or 100' away from the screen pop-out might place an object 10' away (perceived) from you (for example). If you could copy exactly that experience in your home the object would be 10' away (perceived) as well. If the monitor is 3' away it should be inside the monitor. If the screen is 50' away it should be outside the screen.
The real downside I can see is that in a lot of scenes the main object is at screen depth, and I would guess that's to minimize ghosting. So if you change that you would probably see a lot more ghosting. I can't wait to see some 3d blurays eventually and test it out to see how it plays with different settings.
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: [url="http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html"]http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html[/url]
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : [url="http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stereoscopy_in_3ds_max_with_stereocam_modifier"]http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier[/url]
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)[/quote]
I usually do toe in the camera with close-up, portrait style images. I find it usually gives a better sense of of depth in the parts that matter when distance is not involved. On images that have deep backgrounds, I'll stick with a parallel cam since, in the real world, your line of sight for each eye would be nearly parallel when looking into the distance anyway.
I have read some tutorials and all of them use parallel cameras.
This tutorial tells really good why: http://www.captain3d.com/stereo/html/tutorial.html
And this is a pretty good tutorial for 3DsMax : http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/louis/stere...reocam_modifier
Maybe this helps you for renderings. ;)
I usually do toe in the camera with close-up, portrait style images. I find it usually gives a better sense of of depth in the parts that matter when distance is not involved. On images that have deep backgrounds, I'll stick with a parallel cam since, in the real world, your line of sight for each eye would be nearly parallel when looking into the distance anyway.
download and check out these:
[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/3dgeek2009"]http://www.youtube.com/user/3dgeek2009[/url]
download and check out these:
http://www.youtube.com/user/3dgeek2009