Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters
Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011


 - posted 08-21-2012 11:01 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters

quote:
Watching 3-D movies generally means suffering through two things: crappy plotlines that favor spectacle over substance and the need to wear some annoying, dorky glasses. Scientists may have solved one of these frustrations. (You might be able to guess which.)

Researchers in South Korea have created a new method that would allow moviegoers to simply sit down and start watching a 3-D movie with no extra gear necessary. The research was published today in Optics Express.

“This is essentially the next step that was required for 3-D display technology without glasses,” said physicist John Koshel, who studies optical science at the University of Arizona and was not associated with the new work.

We see the world in three dimensions because our eyes are spaced slightly apart, each looking out at a different angle. Your brain combines the information from both eyes, determining where each object in your field of view is to generate depth perception.

To achieve 3-D movies or television, the trick is to send a slightly different, offset picture to each eye. Special glasses handle this task for most modern 3-D blockbuster movies, with each lens only letting in one polarization of light. Polarization describes the direction in which the electromagnetic waves in light oscillate, either up-down, left-right, or something in between.

When you sit down to watch something like Avatar, two projectors are displaying two images on the same screen, with the light from one polarized left-right and the other up-down. This is why the screen looks kind of blurry when you take the glasses off – there are two movies playing on it at the same time. The 3-D glasses correct the situation by separating these images, allowing the left-projector movie to go to your left eye and the right-projector movie into your right.

But needing two projectors perfectly synced in a theater is awkward and expensive. There are some glasses-free methods around, where a special filter covering the screen sends some of the light to your right eye and some to your left, creating a 3-D image. This is the technology in Nintendo’s 3DS gaming system and several smart phone displays, such as the HTC Evo 3D. In a movie theater, this glasses-free 3-D technique would require the projector to sit behind the screen, but most theaters are not designed for this.

The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they’ve always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.

The new method is less cumbersome than both the current two-projector and the behind-the-screen-projector methods. But because it blocks some of the light to your different eyes, the current image resolution is fairly low. Koshel expects that 3-D movie companies will be interested in upgrading the method’s abilities and resolution to bring glasses-free 3-D to the masses.

“This technology is still in its infancy, but it’s a new step that was hidden for a long time,” Koshel said.


 |  IP: Logged

Yinghong Wu
Film Handler

Posts: 32
From: Suzhou Jiangsu China
Registered: Apr 2012


 - posted 08-21-2012 11:26 PM      Profile for Yinghong Wu   Email Yinghong Wu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
so cool,let it's go quickly.

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 08-22-2012 05:03 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Glasses-free 3D is there for decades. The problem is to make it work for large audiences. So far, there is not a single technique available that does it.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 08-22-2012 05:16 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We see the world in three dimensions because our eyes are spaced slightly apart, each looking out at a different angle. Your brain combines the information from both eyes, determining where each object in your field of view is to generate depth perception.
This statement is also only partly true. Close one of your eyes in the real world and everything doesn't suddenly look flat. Your brain uses much more than the difference between each eye to percieve 3D. That's why any 3D effect that is ever designed for more than 1 person to look at simultaneously will NEVER look real and will always look like an effect.

The brain uses the slight movement of the head (as well as other distance cues) to determine what objects are in front of what objects.

Stereoscopic 3D is an effect and nothing more. It is also an annoying effect that doesn't add anything to any movie or TV show. Please stop making 3D movies. I hate them and even when you watch in 2D there are always those stupid shots that are obviously there just to show off the stupid 3D effect.

The industry should try an experiment and charge more for the 2D version. I'd pay more NOT to see 3D if I can see it on the biggest/best screen which is always used by the 3D version.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 08-22-2012 06:58 AM      Profile for Mark Lensenmayer   Email Mark Lensenmayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd be very curious to see how this effect works when sitting off-center.

 |  IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 08-22-2012 08:07 AM      Profile for Mitchell Dvoskin   Email Mitchell Dvoskin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
> The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.

I'm still confused. I assume this is something akin to how lenticular 3D works for still photography, but how do these "vertical" columns prevent both eyes from seeing the image?

 |  IP: Logged

Chuck McGregor
Film Handler

Posts: 47
From: Bremen, ME, USA
Registered: Mar 2012


 - posted 08-22-2012 08:54 AM      Profile for Chuck McGregor   Email Chuck McGregor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
From the description it sure sounds like some sort of lenticular technology. I happen to still have this print:

"Mass production became a reality on February 25, 1964, when a Look Magazine issue featured the first ink-printed postcard sized 'parallax panoramagram' [a] black and white still life of the bust of Thomas Edison surrounded by some of his more famous inventions."

For what it's worth: History of Lenticular Technology

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 08-22-2012 05:48 PM      Profile for Bruce Hansen   Email Bruce Hansen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is BS. They guy who wrote this doesn't know what he is talking about. Two projectors? He hasen't got a clue. What he wrote makes no sense.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-22-2012 08:37 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There are digital 3D setups using two projectors. It's not commonplace but they're out there.

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 08-22-2012 09:10 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This sounds like lenticular to me. But that's not "new technology." I recall reading about some Russian experimentation with this in the July 1983 issue of American Cinematographer -- either there or perhaps in a book I got from Chris Condon of Stereovision in the late 1980s. In any event, glasses-free projected 3D via lenticular has been tried and the problem was that it suffered from a very limited "sweet spot."

But, y'know -- I have a hunch people would tolerate the glasses if they were convinced that effect was truly necessary. Trouble is -- everyone knows it's not necessary. As far as movies go, 3D is a technology in search of an application.

Good storytelling in 2D has a proven track record. Fix the storytelling problem and the very "need" for 3D goes away entirely.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 08-23-2012 12:16 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Is it like the 3D Nintendo DS hand held game unit?

But, can agree with the one statement: Does it go with the feature to make it worthwhile?

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 08-23-2012 06:01 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As I said, you can buy glasses-less autostereoscopic displays for years now. You can see them in public places.

Just that no one knows how to apply the system to a large audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 08-23-2012 06:43 AM      Profile for Hillary Charles   Email Hillary Charles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Manny is correct. In the 1940s, the Soviets had a similar system, using a lenticular screen. No glasses were required, but one had to keep their head perfectly still or they would lose the 3-D effect. The 1947 film ROBINSON CRUSOE was the only feature presented in this manner, from what I've read.

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 08-23-2012 07:47 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Aside from that - I never understand why glasses are such a problem? A large number of people wear them everyday, and a lot of people even wear them for fun or style reasons.

Yes, for those with optical glasses, adding another pair for 3D is sometimes cumbersome, but apart from that? I'd have more issues with carrying a bucket of popcorn and/or coke than a pair of glasses. At least I don't see why glasses-free 3D would finally be the optimal 3D experience. From what we know about autostereoscopic displays, it is very likely that the quality of the 3D vision will actually be lower, that is, more ghosting and artifacts, while some 3D systems with glasses are now very good. I don't wear normal glasses, but I don't care at all if I have to put some on for a 3D movie.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-23-2012 09:20 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Current 3D provides a picture that's "not as good as a regular picture, but close enough for most people." I'll bet glasses-free 3D will provide a picture that's "not as good as regular 3D, but close enough for most people."

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.