-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
3D TV will be next big thing. What impact on photography?
- Thread starter Undah
- Start date
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
There are currently two P&S cameras with 3D movie capture already on the market. One is the Fuji W1, which looks like pretty much any other P&S, just a bit wider, with two lenses. The other is the 3Dinlife, which looks like a set of sci-fi binoculars.
There are also two different 3D "electronic picture frames" (7 and 8 inches), 4 different affordable "mainstream" 3D LCD computer monitors on the market (using 3 different viewing technologies) and some pretty cool software.
In a day when the biggest box office hit of all time is a 3D movie, I expect to see a lot more.
- More 3D P&S, obviously.
- P&S, DSLR, and camcorder "ganging" capability built in by the manufacturers, instead of being hacked in with things like CHDK on Canon cameras, or the Lanc Shepherd hardware for Sony cameras.
- Some solution for ganging HD DSLRs.
- PhotoShop CS5 or 6 with 3D support.
- More and better optical (beam splitter) 3D accessories for existing cameras and camcorders. (heard rumors already of something with the Fuji label)
- Lenses with the beamsplitter farther back in the optical path and dual front elements, so the 3D lenses can be faster and capable of better zoom ranges and macro operation. Probably from a third party like Sigma or Tamron, not from one of the OEMs, although I wouldn't count out Sony, Panasonic, or Pentax.
- A "narrow" "auxillary" DSLR (sensor, processor, storage, no grip) to attach to a main DSLR for a lighter, more manageable stereo package with a half way decent interoccular (coulb be 80mm, instead of about 125 from ganging conventional DSLRs...
- A micro four thirds stereo camera from Oly or Panasonic.
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
In addition to affecting the equipment, I think it will affect the art and craft, what we do with the equipment.
- More photographers will offer 3D as part of commercial work (from event to product to architecture).
- More photographers will start thinking more "three dimensionally"
- Photographers will look for bigger studio spaces, do more location work, acquire more props.
- Lighting and posing styles will change, as photographers don't have to "add depth" to images with lighting and posing as much.
Because 3D tends to force one to think in terms of deep DOF, and because it tends to convey a sense of reality that is frequently quite "harsh", a "backlash" that will also spur a greater interest in
- romantic styles
- shallow DOF "isolated subject" work
- surrealism
- abstracts, right down to a resurrection of the "op art" movement.
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Among other things, there were supposed to be three dots after my last subject, not just one. Anyway, on to the real issues...
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
And, because 3D tends to force one to think in terms of deep DOF, and because it tends to convey a sense of reality that is frequently quite "harsh" (yes, I know I used that sentence in another post. Recycling is good), I expect to see a "backlash" or "rebellion" that spurs an increased interest in romantic styles, soft focus images, shallow DOF images, and surrealism. So, the 3D movement should also stimulate the sales of:
- Fast primes with good bokeh.
- Soft focus lenses like the DC Nikkors, the SF Canons, and the STF Sony lenses.
- Low cost third party soft focus lenses (remember the Spiratone)
- FF cameras (the shallowest DOF)
- "Wild and Crazy" image modifiers, from soft focus filters to Lens Babies...
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
And one last prediction...
Right now, due to the high cost and limited number of screens for 3D, only the "big boys" like Disney/Pixar, WETA, WB, and Dreamworks are getting movies on the big screen, and only the really little folk (students, amateurs, porn producers, etc) are doing stuff for the small screen. There is no 3DMC (middle class).
Soon, there will be enough 3D projection capacity in theaters, enough gear in the field, and enough experience that smaller studios will have a chance. Based on that...
By 2013, a producer who does action films that combine a certain "campy" style with some half way decent production values (I'm guessing Quentin Tarantino) will do a high budget remake of "Creature From The Black Lagoon" (I mean "high budget" by the standards of that genre). It will be a surprising success.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Right now, due to the high cost and limited number of screens for 3D, only the "big boys" like Disney/Pixar, WETA, WB, and Dreamworks are getting movies on the big screen, and only the really little folk (students, amateurs, porn producers, etc) are doing stuff for the small screen. There is no 3DMC (middle class).
Soon, there will be enough 3D projection capacity in theaters, enough gear in the field, and enough experience that smaller studios will have a chance. Based on that...
By 2013, a producer who does action films that combine a certain "campy" style with some half way decent production values (I'm guessing Quentin Tarantino) will do a high budget remake of "Creature From The Black Lagoon" (I mean "high budget" by the standards of that genre). It will be a surprising success.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
iMac therefore iAm
Veteran Member
is the technology out there to present 3D Tv without the need for glasses?
If not, I think people are going to grow tired of it. In my case I almost never sit down to just watch TV... I am always doing something else while watching TV. In fact, my main tv is a 14" CRT in my office.
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org
Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.
If not, I think people are going to grow tired of it. In my case I almost never sit down to just watch TV... I am always doing something else while watching TV. In fact, my main tv is a 14" CRT in my office.
--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org
Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Sort of...
There's "autostereoscopic" displays that use a "barrier strip" so that the left eye sees the odd columns of pixels, the right eye sees the even columns.
The big problem is that barrier strip displays have "sweet spots" that radiate from display center like spokes on a wheel. From normal watching distance, the sweet spots are about 5 inches apart. If you're right on the proper line of site, you see 3D, if you move a little right or left (and I mean like 1/2 inch) you see ghosting, and if you move 2.5 inches, you see reversed 3D, the right eye sees the left eye's image and vise verse. If multiple people watch, each has to be exactly on a spoke, which might not agree with your furniture...
I find the whole "hold steady" thing to be much worse than any 3D glasses based system.
There are expensive (i.e. medical imaging, aerospace, high end CAD) single user autostereoscopic displays that have eye tracking cameras and move the barrier to steer the spokes to your eyes. But the big problems with an expensive, single user display is that it's expensive and single user.
3D may not be for you...
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
iMac therefore iAm
Veteran Member
Considering I have poor distant vision in one eye, you're probably right.
But I just can't see most people wanting to deal with the hassle of special glasses to watch tv all the time. It's one thing in a movie theatre when you have nothing else to distract you, I think it will be different at home.
JRP64
Senior Member
I know for a fact I won't be watching TV if I have to wear 3D glasses and I think these "experts" are jumping the gun predicting this is going to be the next great thing. Years ago they were (probably still are) working on holographic imaging, now if they ever perfect that then I'll be all for it. There are some many interesting things you could do with that and it could get very much like what you see on "Star Trek : TNG".
However, I'm digress I don't see this changing photography all that much in my opinion.
However, I'm digress I don't see this changing photography all that much in my opinion.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
[cut]
I think the big thing is that it's not going to be "all the time". There's only going to be a small percentage of titles out in 3D, and I don't see that ever changing. As far as TV, 90% of programming won't benefit from 3D (Judge Judy 3D? Big Brother 3D? American Idol 3D?)Considering I have poor distant vision in one eye, you're probably right.
But I just can't see most people wanting to deal with the hassle of special glasses to watch tv all the time. It's one thing in a movie theatre when you have nothing else to distract you, I think it will be different at home.
And most TV (even action stuff) is shot on a small set, using standard set design and camera angle tricks to make the sets look bigger, and this does not translate into 3D.
So, it's going to be a "treat", not a "staple".
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Those shows don't really need HD either, but they do look better in it. Sure they don't drive the tech, but once 3D hardware is prevalent enough I bet they'll slowly migrate Judge Judy too.
It seems to me that there are many tricks to be discovered on how to manipulate the effect. I'm sure it's possible to film something on a small set and yet make it appear large and grandiose in 3D. Manipulating linear distance into a curve seems quite possible, just like we modify color curves.
JulesJ
Forum Pro
I saw Avatar at Imax at Xmas. Aweinspiring. just brilliant. It would be great to have 3D TV.
Jules
--
Solidaritory with Sea Shepherd
Jules
--
Solidaritory with Sea Shepherd
Omega_Leader
Forum Enthusiast
The current technology is not mature, if you thought the VHS/Betamax or HDDVD/Blueray issue was big, there are about 10 competing technologies at the moment.
Pick wrong and you waste huge money, pick right and you waste less money.
Give it 3 to 5 years and then I may consider it.
Pick wrong and you waste huge money, pick right and you waste less money.
Give it 3 to 5 years and then I may consider it.
JulesJ
Forum Pro
mamallama
Forum Pro
Now when they implement the holographic 3D TV, it might be the next big thing. With those glasses, it'll remain a niche gimmick, like those old stereo 35mm cameras were.
--mamallama
--mamallama
iMac therefore iAm
Veteran Member
The plot or the graphics? Every comment I've seen on avatar talks about the visual aspect... nobody I know has said anything about the story.
bgD300
Veteran Member
but, 3D never really took off in film days.
I'm sure someone will be FIRST WITH 3D and everyone else will follow.
From my perspective most 3D stuff looks crappy.
--
EXIF is embedded in photos
Zenfolio site - http://www.puntagordanaturally.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
I'm sure someone will be FIRST WITH 3D and everyone else will follow.
From my perspective most 3D stuff looks crappy.
--
EXIF is embedded in photos
Zenfolio site - http://www.puntagordanaturally.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
I know, I know, the spoiler warning won't help those of you who are viewing this thing in flat view. Sorry about that, but...
In more detail: I thought it came together quite well as a movie. Visually stunning, but also with well developed, well acted characters, and a plot that evolves quite nicely over the course of about 3 hours (yes, it's a long one). It twines the small story (the love story between Jake, the marine from Earth, and Neytiri, the native chief's daughter ) and the big story (the war between the indigenous population and an allegedly "more advanced" culture) beautifully, so you never lose the thread of either story.
It's a combination of two classic themes:
What you don't expect is the Japanese "love the hero" thing: Jake doesn't defeat the minor enemies, he brings them over to his side, for the battle with the "big" enemy". Grace (the cynical scientist), Tsu'tey (the native who's Jake's rival for Neytiri) both become his "followers".
But the thing that really sings is the evolving backstory. You end up with both a fairly believable feeling for how things work, and why the heck there's a jar head marine in with the group of scientists.
There's a fairly complete (but quite dry, as expected) summary of the plot in the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_ (2009_film)
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
- The movie has been out for weeks now, you should have been exposed to a lot more of the plot that I'm going to reveal.
- Flat view (to use the proper technical term) sucks. It's responsible for people constantly replying to the wrong post, and makes following "who said what" in a thread impossible.
One line summary: If you liked "Lawrence of Arabia", you're going to love this movie.
In more detail: I thought it came together quite well as a movie. Visually stunning, but also with well developed, well acted characters, and a plot that evolves quite nicely over the course of about 3 hours (yes, it's a long one). It twines the small story (the love story between Jake, the marine from Earth, and Neytiri, the native chief's daughter ) and the big story (the war between the indigenous population and an allegedly "more advanced" culture) beautifully, so you never lose the thread of either story.
It's a combination of two classic themes:
- Advanced culture thinks they've got the right to exploit a more primitive culture. It mostly parallels the exploitation of native Americans, but there's also elements of native Australian and African and even Celtic cultures. Of course, the natives are bright blue, with unique facial features, to keep really "glaring" ethnotypes to a minimum.
- Nature getting thrown out of balance, not in the Hollywood asteroid, ice age, etc. style, but more in the amime Princess Mononoke style. Except that it's less confusing than most anime, and you have a much better chance of not only following the "earth mother" part of the plot, but wanting to follow it.
- The disdain between Jake and Neytiri will evolve into love.
- the big "Zulu Dawn" battle between an army of natives and the corporate military.
- Sigourney Weaver is going to have a beautiful death scene (that's a given, you see Sigourney, and you know she's going to die. Beautifully).
- Unlike anything having to do with Earth (Africa, Native Americans, etc) the natives are going to win.
- As soon as they mention the gigantic, flying Toruk, you know Jake is going to impress the natives by riding it.
What you don't expect is the Japanese "love the hero" thing: Jake doesn't defeat the minor enemies, he brings them over to his side, for the battle with the "big" enemy". Grace (the cynical scientist), Tsu'tey (the native who's Jake's rival for Neytiri) both become his "followers".
But the thing that really sings is the evolving backstory. You end up with both a fairly believable feeling for how things work, and why the heck there's a jar head marine in with the group of scientists.
There's a fairly complete (but quite dry, as expected) summary of the plot in the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_ (2009_film)
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Marketing can't "push" a movie into being the highest grossing film of all time (Avatar shows every sign of passing "Titanic").
And it's not "pushed" happy experimenters from rigging an enormous array of improvised 3D gear over the last decade or two. 3D is something that a significant (i.e. profitable) number of people want.
Remember, all forms of technology have an "incubation period" before things get "good enough" to make a serious impact. Look at digital photography...
3D never took off in film days because:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=34205236
Care to provide some examples of the 3D stuff you're not impressed with? I'm curious as to what you're judging by.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
And it's not "pushed" happy experimenters from rigging an enormous array of improvised 3D gear over the last decade or two. 3D is something that a significant (i.e. profitable) number of people want.
There's never been the kind of technology there is today.
Remember, all forms of technology have an "incubation period" before things get "good enough" to make a serious impact. Look at digital photography...
- 1960-1990 - it's so expensive and esoteric it's only used by folks with NASA style budgets, to do NASA style things.
- 1990-2000 - it's still expensive, low resolution, and awkward. Major news outlets pay the price for DSLRs that weight 3x more than film SLRs, have resolutions too low for anything but newsprint.
- 2000-2010 - it's so good, so widespread that film photography is "commercially extinct".
3D never took off in film days because:
- synchronized systems (two cameras and two projectors with mechanical sync between the pair) doubled the cost of everything, from shooting to distribution, and they were notoriously unreliable. Camera failures cost big bucks during shooting, and projectors got out of sync constantly.
- single film systems were rather low quality.
- films were show either with anaglyph (red/green) glasses and all the headaches (literally and figuratively) that this entailed or linear polarizer glasses (forcing the viewer to keep their head perfectly straight, because you get ghost images if you tilt your head).
- early film projection systems were barely bright enough for 2D, let alone 3D losing a stop or two to the glasses.
That's been covered already. It's not who "will be first", it's who "was first". And second.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=34205236
Most 2D stuff looks crappy, too.
Care to provide some examples of the 3D stuff you're not impressed with? I'm curious as to what you're judging by.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum