downloading 3d movies which 3d format would you prefer and why?
If you were to download 3d videos, which format would you like them to be in and why?

That is, which 3d format and possibly which video format?

3d format examples:
2 separate files - one for each eye
horizontal interlaced, 720x480 dvd-quality/format, field-sequential,
over/under 640x480 - I guess that's lo-res now-a-days
side-by-side, cross-eyed or wide-eyed
vertical interlaced? - I don't expect anyone to want that
anaglyph? - anaglyph, really?
frame-sequential - alternating frames, one for each eye.
any others?

video formats: avi, mpeg, windows-media-files, xvid, others?

I suppose many would just say "whatever format works for my system", but I thought I'ld ask to see if anyone has any preferences. I'm not sure if making 3d videos lies in my future as something significant.

Later.
If you were to download 3d videos, which format would you like them to be in and why?



That is, which 3d format and possibly which video format?



3d format examples:

2 separate files - one for each eye

horizontal interlaced, 720x480 dvd-quality/format, field-sequential,

over/under 640x480 - I guess that's lo-res now-a-days

side-by-side, cross-eyed or wide-eyed

vertical interlaced? - I don't expect anyone to want that

anaglyph? - anaglyph, really?

frame-sequential - alternating frames, one for each eye.

any others?



video formats: avi, mpeg, windows-media-files, xvid, others?



I suppose many would just say "whatever format works for my system", but I thought I'ld ask to see if anyone has any preferences. I'm not sure if making 3d videos lies in my future as something significant.



Later.

#1
Posted 05/06/2009 11:24 AM   
My slight preference would be side-by-side, right image first (crosseyed in simple words. :P). Backside is of course that far from everyone is able to view a video crosseyed. Compression is not a problem using side-by-side.
Interlaced might work but we need 3d-optimized compression codecs to get decent results (otherwise you risk that the compression messes up the L/R separation). Without compression the movies tends to have a huge filesize.
Anaglyph: Same problem as with interlaced. Tried making stereomovies in readymade anaglyph to download but viewing a compressed side-by-side in stereoscopic player and anaglyph option gives far better results,
Two separate videofiles: Sure, why not? :) They can easily entertain oneeyed viewers in a proper way too. ;) Compression is not a problem.
Framesequential: Sure, but the refreshrate needs to be kept high! I think you need an optimized compression algoritm for stereo but i can't 100% tell.
All videoformats can be done with different resolutions so i'm not counting resolution in as a deciding factor.
Regarding interlaced you can keep the original movieresolution if either the vertical or horisontal resolution is doubled.

My preference regarding moviemakersoft is stereomoviemaker and aviddemux for compression. Aviddemux is a free opensourceprogram that internally handles xvid and my favourite h264. Both codecs are included in most codecpacks that can be found. Stereomoviemaker is also free. :D
My slight preference would be side-by-side, right image first (crosseyed in simple words. :P). Backside is of course that far from everyone is able to view a video crosseyed. Compression is not a problem using side-by-side.

Interlaced might work but we need 3d-optimized compression codecs to get decent results (otherwise you risk that the compression messes up the L/R separation). Without compression the movies tends to have a huge filesize.

Anaglyph: Same problem as with interlaced. Tried making stereomovies in readymade anaglyph to download but viewing a compressed side-by-side in stereoscopic player and anaglyph option gives far better results,

Two separate videofiles: Sure, why not? :) They can easily entertain oneeyed viewers in a proper way too. ;) Compression is not a problem.

Framesequential: Sure, but the refreshrate needs to be kept high! I think you need an optimized compression algoritm for stereo but i can't 100% tell.

All videoformats can be done with different resolutions so i'm not counting resolution in as a deciding factor.

Regarding interlaced you can keep the original movieresolution if either the vertical or horisontal resolution is doubled.



My preference regarding moviemakersoft is stereomoviemaker and aviddemux for compression. Aviddemux is a free opensourceprogram that internally handles xvid and my favourite h264. Both codecs are included in most codecpacks that can be found. Stereomoviemaker is also free. :D

Image

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.

#2
Posted 05/06/2009 11:54 AM   
I prefer: 1 file, sidebyside, crosseyed, avi.
The great thing about that is that I can view it crosseyed if my computer is not fast enough to play it with Stereoscopic Player.
I prefer: 1 file, sidebyside, crosseyed, avi.

The great thing about that is that I can view it crosseyed if my computer is not fast enough to play it with Stereoscopic Player.

#3
Posted 05/06/2009 08:55 PM   
I'm not really setup for recording 3d video gameplay, but I"ve looked into it and came up with some hardware-based options. Unfortunately, the best resolution and framerate is the old standard 640x480 at 30 fps. I could choose PAL instead of NTSC and then get 768x576. That's nice and close to 800x600 but then the framerate would be 25fps instead of 30. I tried this anyway and it produces a more noisy picture so I think the best choice for me is to stick with the NTSC format. I think the extra smoothness in video play and less noise is worth it despite the lower res.

So the best I can do is use two recording computers and one gaming computer and get 30 fps for each eye, then combine them to 60fps frame sequential or 30fps side-by-side, etc.

If I use only one recording computer, then I can record in interlaced format at 30fps meaning 60 half-frames per second since it's a field-sequential format. That would be alot easier to edit since I wouldn't have to sync-up two separate files. That's as long as no process screws up the interlacing and as you said, Likay, that means half-res vertically per eye-frame. It's just tempting to use this since it's kind of standard for 3d dvds but I suppose it's time to move beyond that standard.

I would like frame-sequential to work well but my experience with it has not been so good. I have to try stereoscopic player and stereomoviemaker sometime. So far I've been using mplayer to play my 3d-dvds. It's tricky but I wanted to succeed at the challenge. The biggest problem is AV sync. Locking video framerate to match the shutterglasses interferes with that.

So what formats do you record in? Have you done alot? What things have you done? Include time durations and filesizes if you want. I don't want to seem demanding, but I'm curious about this stuff.

I would like to do some but I think not enough time is the issue.

Later
I'm not really setup for recording 3d video gameplay, but I"ve looked into it and came up with some hardware-based options. Unfortunately, the best resolution and framerate is the old standard 640x480 at 30 fps. I could choose PAL instead of NTSC and then get 768x576. That's nice and close to 800x600 but then the framerate would be 25fps instead of 30. I tried this anyway and it produces a more noisy picture so I think the best choice for me is to stick with the NTSC format. I think the extra smoothness in video play and less noise is worth it despite the lower res.



So the best I can do is use two recording computers and one gaming computer and get 30 fps for each eye, then combine them to 60fps frame sequential or 30fps side-by-side, etc.



If I use only one recording computer, then I can record in interlaced format at 30fps meaning 60 half-frames per second since it's a field-sequential format. That would be alot easier to edit since I wouldn't have to sync-up two separate files. That's as long as no process screws up the interlacing and as you said, Likay, that means half-res vertically per eye-frame. It's just tempting to use this since it's kind of standard for 3d dvds but I suppose it's time to move beyond that standard.



I would like frame-sequential to work well but my experience with it has not been so good. I have to try stereoscopic player and stereomoviemaker sometime. So far I've been using mplayer to play my 3d-dvds. It's tricky but I wanted to succeed at the challenge. The biggest problem is AV sync. Locking video framerate to match the shutterglasses interferes with that.



So what formats do you record in? Have you done alot? What things have you done? Include time durations and filesizes if you want. I don't want to seem demanding, but I'm curious about this stuff.



I would like to do some but I think not enough time is the issue.



Later

#4
Posted 05/07/2009 08:06 AM   
I use a similar method to record ingame movies but i use recordable dvd's instead. The big caveat is that the frames from the vga-to-tv boxes i have is not in sync. /blarg.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':/' /> When viewing static or slowmoving scenes there's no problem but when the scene moves fast it really messes up perception. Vga-to-tv converters seemed like the best option for me since i use two projectors but after trying i think that this recording method is really not the best.
You can try recording an ingame video with the iz3d-driver (over/under) option and record it with one source with very good results though (If you're into it then check with Blackshark@mtbs3d.com). The videos from him has way better quality than mine!
I use a similar method to record ingame movies but i use recordable dvd's instead. The big caveat is that the frames from the vga-to-tv boxes i have is not in sync. /blarg.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':/' /> When viewing static or slowmoving scenes there's no problem but when the scene moves fast it really messes up perception. Vga-to-tv converters seemed like the best option for me since i use two projectors but after trying i think that this recording method is really not the best.

You can try recording an ingame video with the iz3d-driver (over/under) option and record it with one source with very good results though (If you're into it then check with Blackshark@mtbs3d.com). The videos from him has way better quality than mine!

Image

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.

#5
Posted 05/07/2009 12:00 PM   
Sorry about the doubleposting but i found Blackshark's thread and figured it should be worth an extra mention: [url="http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2020"]http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2020[/url]
If you have an external capturedevice this method(s) gives more than decent results!
Sorry about the doubleposting but i found Blackshark's thread and figured it should be worth an extra mention: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2020

If you have an external capturedevice this method(s) gives more than decent results!

Image

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.

#6
Posted 05/07/2009 08:47 PM   
Scroll To Top