Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How can Stereo help story?

Expand Messages
  • vfxdoctor
    Well, this is a big topic. I could probably write a small novel on this one question alone. I ll only pick one or two of the more obvious answers... In most
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 2, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, this is a big topic. I could probably write a small novel on
      this one question alone.

      I'll only pick one or two of the more obvious answers...

      In most movies, the story opens with a hero that is an island. That
      is, their security/support is gone and they are on their own. Often,
      especially in animated films, the hero is an orphan or becomes an
      orphan at the start of the story. They are also missing something in
      their life (which they will gain, as they evolve later in the story).
      Their life is lacking something, they're failing to have the fun they
      should, maybe also missing love, and their life is "flat". 3-D
      cinematography should echo and accentuate this aspect of the
      character's life. In much the same way as the musical soundtrack would.

      Pre-production/production has a Storyboard (to script the blocking
      characters & camera movements/view), Color Script, Scratch Track
      (rough underlying soudtrack music), and a Key Lighting Script
      (lighting evolution for story), etc. These allow the aspects of a
      movie to support the emotional state of the character, and the tone of
      the story. For example, a Color Script contains thumbnails (series of
      tiny drawings) of each sequence, showing the color schemes used
      throughout the movie. They provide tonal support, to reflect the
      "depression" of the character, or their "happiness", their "greed",
      "innocence", etc. So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a Depth
      Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
      and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).

      Because the hero's life is initially 'flat', much of Act I (the first
      1/4 of the story) tends to be less deep 3-D, in order to emphasis the
      lack of depth in the hero's life at the start of the story. There are
      deep 'moments' in the first Act... some of those need to happen to
      empasize specific story beats (blimps of shinying or theatening
      moments to the hero)... but most of them will happen to other
      characters (not the hero), in their scenes, to emphasize how much
      deeper and more fullfilled the *other* character's lives are, in
      contrast to the flat life of the hero, in Act I.

      About 1/4 of the way into the story, the hero is offered a chance to
      have an adventure. After (briefly) initially refusing that 'call to
      adventure', the hero accepts it and leaps into the new adventure, and
      often into a new world/realm to be discovered and explored. When
      exposed to this adventure, their life starts to become more fulfilled,
      adventurous, and "deeper". In contrast to the shallow depth used to
      cinematically tell the story of the hero's lack of adventure in the
      beginning... now the cinematic 3-D storytelling widens and deepens
      *dramatically*, to show the vastness of the new world/realm, the
      incredible scope of the adventure in front of them, and (most
      importantly) the sense of openess and *freedom* that the hero feels
      from their previously unremarkable, entrapped life. This is not
      eye-poking 3-D, but instead DEEP 3-D (65mm positive infinity be
      darned, this is a wall-eyed moment, as best as you can safely achieve
      it)! This is the moment when you Wow the audience with the deepness of
      a vast landscape, or other impressive, deep, behind-the-screen
      expanse. This is the same 'Wow' the hero is feeling, shared by the
      audience through 3-D.

      Ok... well, that's the bulk of Act I, at it's coarsest overview
      description, on how to use 3-D for storytelling. The only other thing
      for Act I is that you should always start and end a movie with a
      powerful, attention-grabbing moment. So, the first sequence of Act I
      (first scene, usually 3 to 10 minutes) should be *very* 3-D...
      preferably, with some out-of-screen (negative parallax) moments, and
      some reasonable depth to the scene. This pulls the audience into the
      story initially, so they'll stick through the rest of the relatively
      shallow Act I, until it returns to being deeper and more 3-D, near the
      end of Act I. (Roughly, 5 to 10 minutes of shallowness). It also
      provides the contrast necessary, without which you wouldn't sense the
      dullness of the hero's initial life, which is the basis of why there
      is a story need, and why the character needs to change.

      Wish I could go into all the details. And the rest of the 3-D story
      support, but, hey... this posting is already too long, and I'm
      babbling as it is. So, I'll just talk about the first 1/4 of the
      story, and stop short of babble-mania. :-)

      -- Brian Gardner
    • J R
      ... The concept of contrasting visual elements in the image to emphasis story elements has been used with sound and color. Early sound films had only parts,
      Message 2 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 3/2/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:

        > ...and their life is "flat". 3-D
        > cinematography should echo and accentuate this aspect of the
        > character's life. In much the same way as the musical soundtrack would.

        > Because the hero's life is initially 'flat', much of Act I (the first
        > 1/4 of the story) tends to be less deep 3-D, in order to emphasis the
        > lack of depth in the hero's life at the start of the story.

        The concept of contrasting visual elements in the image to emphasis
        story elements has been used with sound and color. Early sound films
        had only parts, usually musical numbers, in sound. The beginning and
        ending of the Technicolor "Wizard of Oz" were monochrome (sepia), with
        the main fantasy story element in full color. Likewise, it would be
        possible to have part of a film flat and part in 3-D. This was tried
        in Spy Kids 3-D, although not as effectively as it might have been had
        more thought been given to relating it to the story elements.

        > So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a Depth
        > Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
        > and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).

        A dimensional script should include not only camera and lens settings,
        but characteristics of the scene (set dressing, art design) and even
        the actors (makeup, costuming) and direction (moves within the
        storyline to relate to the story itself).

        > ... now the cinematic 3-D storytelling widens and deepens
        > *dramatically*, to show the vastness of the new world/realm, the
        > incredible scope of the adventure in front of them, and (most
        > importantly) the sense of openess and *freedom* that the hero feels
        > from their previously unremarkable, entrapped life. This is not
        > eye-poking 3-D, but instead DEEP 3-D (65mm positive infinity be
        > darned, this is a wall-eyed moment, as best as you can safely achieve
        > it)! This is the moment when you Wow the audience with the deepness of
        > a vast landscape, or other impressive, deep, behind-the-screen
        > expanse. This is the same 'Wow' the hero is feeling, shared by the
        > audience through 3-D.

        I agree with the premise, but not the necessity to actually go
        wall-eyed. Many, perhaps most people find visual divergence
        uncomfortable, even painful. Others find that this unnatural
        condition will actually cause the backgrounds of images to "split
        apart" and be unfusable, resulting in a very disconcerting "double
        flat image" effect.

        If the described scene is correctly photographed (and in some cases
        correctly staged), divergence is not necessary at all to convey the
        impression of extreme depth. This is proven by the "wow" effect in
        non-stereoscopic Cinerama when the camera-carrying aircraft crests a
        mountain peak or flies over the edge of a large canyon or over a cliff
        to reveal a huge expanse of scenery (accompanied by a dramatic "swell"
        in the soundtrack music).

        If this were done in 3-D as well, the result would be breathtaking.
        3-D Cinerama has always been a wish of mine, and now with visibly
        seamless computer stitching, it just might be possible.

        There are two main keys (and several minor ones) to achieving this
        "wow" effect without going walleyed.

        The visual depth impression resulting from parallax differentiation is
        a comparative one, not an absolute. If the far point is indeed
        parallel, we visually interpret it to be at infinity (or as far away
        as possible for a particular scene). Attempting to diverge the eyes
        does NOT make it appear to be any further, it only degrades the image.
        However, if the range is extended by having closer near-points, the
        background appears to be further by comparison.

        With great distances, even in real life, parallax differentiation
        becomes progressively less, and other depth cues (see "Andrew's List")
        tend to predominate. Cinerama made great use not only of peripheral
        vision, but motion parallax as well, and most certainly the surround
        sound soundtracks (for both music and sound effects such as traveling
        foleys). With 3-D, these factors can greatly enhance the impression
        of depth.

        > Ok... well, that's the bulk of Act I, at it's coarsest overview
        > description, on how to use 3-D for storytelling. The only other thing
        > for Act I is that you should always start and end a movie with a
        > powerful, attention-grabbing moment. So, the first sequence of Act I
        > (first scene, usually 3 to 10 minutes) should be *very* 3-D...
        > preferably, with some out-of-screen (negative parallax) moments, and
        > some reasonable depth to the scene.

        An important story-telling element is that of anticipation and
        comparison. When you are going to have an off-the-screen impression,
        it will be enhanced by several things, one of which is to have the
        scene that immediately precedes it relatively flat, with little depth
        range.

        With flat films, directing the audience's attention to key story
        elements is often done with the limited capabilities of having to work
        within the restricted realm of 2-D. Such things as camera motion and
        selective focus. With 3-D, selective focus is not only unnecessary,
        but usually undesirable. Instead, the depth element itself may be
        used to effect this by using camera placement, motion, traveling
        convergence (or, better yet, traveling lens shift) and other
        techniques and combinations draw the audience into the desired story
        element.

        The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directing
        storylines have hardly been explored yet.

        JR
      • J R
        At this point, there have been several commentaries on Phil s original question to 3dtv regarding how 3-D can help a story. These have even split into three
        Message 3 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          At this point, there have been several commentaries on Phil's original
          question to 3dtv regarding how 3-D can help a story. These have even
          split into three different threads (with similar titles, yet
          differentiating just enough to result in the splits.

          Regarding changing title subject lines, I would like to suggest that
          this only be done when the main subject topic changes. Trying to
          follow and answer different threads on the same subject gets rather
          convoluted, and makes it rather difficult to assemble all of the
          answers relevant to the same concept. Keep in mind that anytime the
          subject line is changed, a new thread is automatically started. This
          is good when the topic actually changes, but not helpful for a
          continuation of the same topic.

          Regarding Phil's original question, do you feel that it has been
          adequately answered, Phil, or would you like to see further
          commentary? Anyone else like for more expansion on this very
          important subject?

          JR
        • vfxdoctor
          ... I definately was NOT suggesting this. I m more talking about using the contrast of controlled depth versus deep depth, to support the story and character s
          Message 4 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
            > Likewise, it would be
            > possible to have part of a film flat and part in 3-D.

            I definately was NOT suggesting this. I'm more talking about using the
            contrast of controlled depth versus deep depth, to support the story
            and character's emotional contrasts.

            Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenes
            versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
            create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.
          • J R
            ... So, would this be like conveying an upbeat finale by having the hero ride off in the sunset in a magnificently vast atmosphere, while earlier shots would
            Message 5 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On 3/3/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:

              > I'm more talking about using the
              > contrast of controlled depth versus deep depth, to support the story
              > and character's emotional contrasts.
              >
              > Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenes
              > versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
              > create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.

              So, would this be like conveying an upbeat finale by having the hero
              ride off in the sunset in a magnificently vast atmosphere, while
              earlier shots would be more confining by showing only a half-vast
              atmosphere? Many current flat movies seem to be rather half-vast.

              JR
            • Husak Michal
              ... This is an excelent idea !!! This will teach people to be depresed from standard 2D movies ! 2D scene - the live is flat and bad ... 3D scene - this is the
              Message 6 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                >Think of this more like using muted colors during depressing scenes
                >versus vibrant colors during happy scenes. The idea is to use depth to
                >create a claustrophobic atmosphere versus a magnificently vast atmosphere.

                This is an excelent idea !!! This will teach people to be depresed from standard 2D movies !

                2D scene - the live is flat and bad ...
                3D scene - this is the true live !!!!






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • boris@starosta.com
                ... Could one use focus too? Could there be a focus script ? You know, the hero lacks focus (in his life) in the first 1/4 of the story, Act I, and later on
                Message 7 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > From: "vfxdoctor" <brianrg@...>

                  >"innocence", etc. So, too, a well told 3-D story would have a Depth
                  >Script, which depicts the underlying tonal support for the characters
                  >and story (in terms of 3-D cinematographic effect).

                  Could one use focus too? Could there be a "focus script"? You know, the
                  hero lacks focus (in his life) in the first 1/4 of the story, Act I, and
                  later on one could bring the story into focus. You'd want to start the
                  very beginning

                  ---


                  > From: "J R" <stereoscope3d@...>
                  ...
                  >[directing audience] With 3-D, selective focus is not only unnecessary,
                  >but usually undesirable. Instead, the depth element itself may be
                  >used to effect this by using camera placement, motion, traveling

                  Bob Bloomberg's slideshow on Tuscany did a really wonderful job, in a few
                  of the dissolves, of directing the audience attention using compositional
                  elements. This minimized eyestrain going from one slide/scene to the next.

                  But this is not an example of how 3d _supports_ storytelling. It is an
                  example of how one can make 3d more _tolerable_, i.e. less obtrusive and
                  stressful. What is perceived as a potential extra axis (or extra
                  dimension) for creativity is the thing that makes 3d images take a lot more
                  time for the mind's eye to digest, and this factor alone makes them
                  unsuitable to story telling - generally. There will always be exceptions
                  on the margin, of course.

                  >
                  >The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directing
                  >storylines have hardly been explored yet.
                  >

                  This is true, and so I am intrigued if this discussion - this exploration -
                  will find any such capabilities. So far I haven't seen any evidence.

                  ...

                  >their premise of being excellent story-telling vehicles. But, this
                  >does not mean that they cannot be. Some of them, such as "House of
                  >Wax" "I, the Jury", "Second Chance", "The Glass Web", "Inferno", "Kiss
                  >Me Kate", and "Dial M for Murder" while not living up to their
                  >potential, nevertheless point to directions that this could and should
                  >take. Once someone who is both a great story-teller and yet fully
                  >understanding of 3-D does a production, the importance of 3-D to the
                  >story will be realized.

                  I appreciate the examples, but I'd like the discussion to remain more
                  theoretical. I think we are getting off track. I don't understand how
                  _theoretically_ a story telling can be enhanced by 3d. To restate my
                  skepticism differently:

                  1. storytelling depends on characters and their actions.
                  2. enhancements (e.g. in evoking mood) can be made with color, sound, etc.
                  but these come at NO COST to the audience.
                  3. 3d is costly in terms of human factors (for the simplest example: 15% of
                  your audience are not stereoviewers). It is hard on the eyes. There is
                  NO WAY around this, I believe (you can always minimize parallax, but then
                  this begs the question).

                  thus my question becomes:

                  4. where in the problem of story-telling is the solution of 3d worth the cost?


                  (Keep in mind please, I am not dismissing the usefulness of 3d motion
                  pictures. I am addressing the original question, "how can 3d support
                  storytelling?" It's a good question, because many motion pictures made,
                  are made to tell a story.)


                  Boris




                  resolved for 2006: absolutely no email reading before 9AM!
                  __________________________________________________________



                  __________________________________________________________
                  ©2006 Boris Starosta Stereoscopic Art + 3d Photography
                  absolute web contact via <http://public.xdi.org/=starosta>
                  Co-ordinates: 38 deg 3 min 23 sec N 78 deg 29 min 45 sec W
                • vfxdoctor
                  ... I think we agree to disagree on this. I went to the local IMAX 3-D theater to watch Wild Safari 3D the other day (with Phil/ Deepa ), and we were
                  Message 8 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
                    > ...
                    > I agree with the premise, but not the necessity to actually go
                    > wall-eyed. Many, perhaps most people find visual divergence
                    > uncomfortable, even painful. Others find that this unnatural
                    > condition will actually cause the backgrounds of images to "split
                    > apart" and be unfusable, resulting in a very disconcerting "double
                    > flat image" effect.

                    I think we agree to disagree on this.
                    I went to the local IMAX 3-D theater to watch 'Wild Safari 3D' the
                    other day (with Phil/'Deepa'), and we were surprised that many of the
                    best moments in the film had extreme positive parallax. We flipped
                    up/off our glasses periodically. One scene that I particularly liked
                    had a positive parallax of about 3 feet (yes, 3 'feet'). I could be
                    wrong, maybe it was only 2.5 feet... it was big, though. And neither
                    of us (nor the family behind us) had any trouble fusing it.

                    I've never bought in to the 65mm positive parallax limit. My view is
                    that I'm not simulating reality, I'm making art. There are rules that
                    I need to abide by, and rules that I can break. I also don't believe
                    in absolutes very often. I believe that within limits, for a limited
                    amount of time, I am free to break the 65mm rule, as long as I know
                    what I'm doing. Obviously, going too far will create unfusable double
                    images, but I have enough common sense and visual feedback to not do
                    that.

                    A real person's life can take 80 years to live, but as an artist in
                    film, I can portray a biography of their life in 120 minutes. I'm not
                    limited by reality of time. I don't need to make a 80 year long movie.
                    Their life wont be accurate in 120 mins, it'll be distorted. But, how
                    it is distorted is what makes it art. And controlling that editing
                    process is the difference between a great biographic film, and a poor one.

                    I feel the same way about stereoscopic parameters. The interaxial,
                    amount of positive parallax, image shift, and angle of the camera
                    backplane are all 'creative' controls to me. I know that there are a
                    lot of people chanting the 65mm positive parallax limit mantra. I may
                    stand alone in defiance on this one.

                    Hopefuly, I won't have to eat these words later. :-O

                    > 3-D Cinerama has always been a wish of mine, and now with visibly
                    > seamless computer stitching, it just might be possible.

                    We should looking into geting together an doing this as a personal
                    project. Maybe start with a simple short? I wonder if the Pacific
                    Cinerama Dome in Hollywood is set up for 3-D on their cinerama
                    screens? It'd be one hect of a festival entry!

                    > An important story-telling element is that of anticipation and
                    > comparison. When you are going to have an off-the-screen impression,
                    > it will be enhanced by several things, one of which is to have the
                    > scene that immediately precedes it relatively flat, with little depth
                    > range.

                    Yes, this is what I'm alluding to. Start the film deep and
                    attention-grabbing...then contrast it with shallow depth and confined
                    to emphasize hero's adventureless/loveless life...then contrast it
                    again with deep and vast 3-D to emphasize the excitement and freedom
                    that comes with the start of the adventure.

                    > The capabilities of stereoscopic imaging for enhancing and directing
                    > storylines have hardly been explored yet.
                    >
                    > JR
                    >

                    Very true. I think that is our duty. The time seems right for this.

                    We just need to seize the moment, before the money-men use 3-D to sell
                    tickets to badly made movies and sour the audience. I wish I had the
                    position and money to just hire all the best and most enthusiastic 3-D
                    experimentalists into a studio (or form a new studio) and make a
                    top-notch think-tank for developing 3-D content.

                    -- Brian
                  • vfxdoctor
                    ... Hah!! :-) lol This had me falling off the chair laughing.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
                      > Many current flat movies seem to be rather half-vast.

                      Hah!! :-) lol
                      This had me falling off the chair laughing.
                    • vfxdoctor
                      ... know, the ... Certainly this was done recently, on an allergy medication commercial, which is playing currently on TV. The hero starts their journey all
                      Message 10 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, boris@... wrote:
                        > Could one use focus too? Could there be a "focus script"? You
                        know, the
                        > hero lacks focus (in his life) in the first 1/4 of the story, Act I, and
                        > later on one could bring the story into focus. You'd want to start the
                        > very beginning

                        Certainly this was done recently, on an allergy medication commercial,
                        which is playing currently on TV. The hero starts their journey all
                        congested, dulled, and unenergetic, presented by the hero being
                        de-focused as they walked through a background that is sharply
                        in-focus. After the hero is introduced to the allergy medication, they
                        are free to live a clear-headed life... which is represented by the
                        hero coming into sharp focus.

                        Usually, camera scripts starts with a Storyboard. Focus notes first
                        appear there. Although, it's not specifically called a 'Focus Script',
                        focus is initially scripted there.

                        Don't know if had intended your comment as sarcasm. But, the
                        entertainment industry is strange enough, that even sarcastic ideas
                        have been done before. :-)
                      • J R
                        ... So??? What was your viewing distance? Parallax takes into consideration the angle of view and the resulting lateral displacement at the eyes.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Mar 3, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 3/3/06, vfxdoctor <brianrg@...> wrote:

                          > I went to the local IMAX 3-D theater to watch 'Wild Safari 3D' the
                          > other day (with Phil/'Deepa'), and we were surprised that many of the
                          > best moments in the film had extreme positive parallax. We flipped
                          > up/off our glasses periodically. One scene that I particularly liked
                          > had a positive parallax of about 3 feet (yes, 3 'feet'). I could be
                          > wrong, maybe it was only 2.5 feet... it was big, though. And neither
                          > of us (nor the family behind us) had any trouble fusing it.

                          So??? What was your viewing distance? Parallax takes into
                          consideration the angle of view and the resulting lateral displacement
                          at the eyes. Therefore, it is a function of not only the actual
                          linear lateral displacement at the screen, but the distance of the
                          screen as well. Let's say there was a positive displacement of 3
                          feet on the screen. Obviously, you would not be able to fuse that
                          from, say, a viewing distance of 3 feet. Doesn't matter. No one
                          views an IMAX movie from that close. Even the front row is usually
                          over 50 feet away. The further you get from the screen, the smaller
                          the angular displacement will be, and the closer it will approach
                          parallel sight-lines. Even if the screen is 200 feet away, it is
                          closer than infinity, and therefore the eyes will be very slightly
                          converging to fuse a point on the screen that is at zero parallax (no
                          displacement). Thus you can safely go out to 65mm with NO divergence
                          whatsoever. At normal viewing distances, a 3 ft. displacement will
                          not cause more than a very slight amount of divergence, considerably
                          less than if you were to try to "parallel" (a misnomer) freeview a
                          stereo card with a 3-1/2 inch base.

                          The point is, that there is no need to force divergence at all. A
                          point on the screen that has a 3 foot positive parallax will not
                          appear to be significantly, if any, further away than a 65mm (approx.
                          2-1/2 inch) parallax from normal viewing distances. Extending
                          divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
                          problems for people who are sitting closer?

                          JR
                        • Deepa
                          ... This has been a great discussion. Confirming and adding to many ideas I was thinking about and compiling into my own notes on how to get the most out of 3D
                          Message 12 of 25 , Mar 4, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:

                            > Regarding Phil's original question, do you feel that it has been
                            > adequately answered, Phil, or would you like to see further
                            > commentary?

                            This has been a great discussion. Confirming and adding to many ideas I was thinking
                            about and compiling into my own notes on how to get the most out of 3D for my
                            future projects. Now it all comes down to time, interest and budget from everyone
                            else involved...phil
                          • Deepa
                            ... movies ! Ha that is the best comment so far. ;-) phil
                            Message 13 of 25 , Mar 4, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "Husak Michal" <husakm@...> wrote:

                              > This is an excelent idea !!! This will teach people to be depresed from standard 2D
                              movies !

                              Ha that is the best comment so far. ;-)

                              phil
                            • Deepa
                              ... Extending ... Thats something to test. Does it seem deeper? phil
                              Message 14 of 25 , Mar 4, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
                                Extending
                                > divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
                                > problems for people who are sitting closer?
                                >
                                > JR
                                >

                                Thats something to test. Does it seem deeper?

                                phil
                              • J R
                                ... In real life, we never encounter visual objects past infinity (parallel sightlines). When observing celestial objects such as the moon and stars, there
                                Message 15 of 25 , Mar 5, 2006
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 3/4/06, Deepa <stereo@...> wrote:
                                  > --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <stereoscope3d@...> wrote:
                                  > Extending
                                  > > divergence past parallel has no advantage, so why do it and risk
                                  > > problems for people who are sitting closer?
                                  > >
                                  > > JR
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Thats something to test. Does it seem deeper?

                                  In real life, we never encounter visual objects past infinity
                                  (parallel sightlines). When observing celestial objects such as the
                                  moon and stars, there is insufficient visual stereo acuteness
                                  capability to visually differentiate distances between a relatively
                                  close (in astronomical terms) object, our moon, and the stars which
                                  are light-years away. Even a high-flying aircraft in our own
                                  atmosphere will appear visually to be as far as our moon, a distance
                                  difference of about two hundred thousand miles.

                                  I recall one night when a flock of geese passed in front of the disc
                                  of the moon. To be visually resolved, the geese would have had to be
                                  only a few hundred feet away. Yet, a friend who happened to be with
                                  me at the time made the comment that they appeared to be "swimming
                                  across the face of the moon". Objects that are at such distances
                                  that the eyes approach very closely the parallel sightline condition,
                                  are way too far away for the unaided stereo base of the human eyes to
                                  vary the distance assumption based on stereoscopic vision alone.

                                  However, testing is a very good idea. It would be useful for people
                                  making stereo images to know how much divergence is tolerable for
                                  "typical" people.

                                  Such a test would, however, be rather difficult. There are at least
                                  three, possibly four criteria, of which only the first (and least
                                  critical) would be relatively easy to test. Even then, it would be
                                  necessary to test several hundred people to make sure that the results
                                  were reasonably statistically valid. It would also be desirable to
                                  differentiate between people who had never seen stereoscopic 3-D
                                  before and those who had considerable stereoscopic image viewing
                                  experience. Differentiating by age groups, and possibly other
                                  factors (such as frequent near-vision situations like reading or
                                  computer screen viewing much of the time) might be useful.

                                  The first criterion would be that of determining at what points both
                                  divergence and extreme convergence could be visually detected or
                                  "felt" by the individual, in terms of first feeling the lateral pull
                                  of the eye muscles in response to this visual stimulus. It might also
                                  be desirable to determine (both as a separate test and combined) how
                                  much vertical disparity was tolerable.

                                  The second criterion would be the pain threshold. And the third
                                  would be the amount of time (both for one exposure, and cumulative,
                                  over say a two hour period) that this would be tolerable.

                                  A possible fourth might be testable, but with difficulty. This would
                                  be headaches that were a result. The possible variables here are
                                  numerous, and many people, after viewing a 3-D movie, have reported to
                                  me (as voluntary comments) that the onset of these headaches was some
                                  time, often hours, after the viewing experience, although a very few
                                  did say they experienced "instant" headaches. It is likely that some
                                  people are much more susceptible than others, such as people who are
                                  prone to suffer migraines.

                                  In any case, the real question would be who would be willing to
                                  underwrite the cost of such testing. People usually expect to be
                                  paid to participate in "focus groups".

                                  Any thoughts or comments? I am ready to conduct such a test, as soon
                                  as the money (including my being paid for putting together and
                                  conducting the test, or series of tests) is available...

                                  JR
                                • boris@starosta.com
                                  To vfxdoctor, yes my suggestion of a focus script was sarcastic (even if cut-off by my own email bungling), but I appreciate your reference to current uses of
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Mar 6, 2006
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To vfxdoctor, yes my suggestion of a focus script was sarcastic (even if
                                    cut-off by my own email bungling), but I appreciate your reference to
                                    current uses of focus in video illustration (also I admit to my own
                                    _serious_ interest in defocus or blurring as a compositional device in 3d).

                                    In nominal support of my thesis, the substance of most of the responses in
                                    this thread has been about technical human factors issues, and to a lesser
                                    extent, how stereo will enhance the "experience" of a scene.

                                    For example, can divergence be tolerated by your audience if you want to
                                    show great "vast" depth, or even, does overly positive parallax (i.e.
                                    divergence) create a "deeper" sensation than a well composed shot kept
                                    within traditional limits?

                                    I don't see how these things have anything to do with storytelling. Again,
                                    I believe storytelling is about characters (i.e. script and dialogue) and
                                    their actions. The rest is icing on the cake. (Granted, lots of people
                                    going to the theater, go for the icing. That's why there's so much
                                    interest in 3d currently).

                                    To my mind, the original question has not yet been addressed (except for my
                                    own half-vast response, if you will.).

                                    nice thread!

                                    Cheers!

                                    Boris
                                  • vfxdoctor
                                    ... responses in ... lesser ... Again, ... dialogue) and ... I, too, was quite surprised by the lack of answers to the actual question. There were a lot of
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Mar 6, 2006
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In 3dtv@yahoogroups.com, boris@... wrote:
                                      > In nominal support of my thesis, the substance of most of the
                                      responses in
                                      > this thread has been about technical human factors issues, and to a
                                      lesser
                                      > extent, how stereo will enhance the "experience" of a scene.
                                      > ...
                                      >
                                      > I don't see how these things have anything to do with storytelling.
                                      Again,
                                      > I believe storytelling is about characters (i.e. script and
                                      dialogue) and
                                      > their actions. ...

                                      I, too, was quite surprised by the lack of answers to the actual
                                      question. There were a lot of responses to the realism and Wow-factor
                                      of 3-D. And a few 3-D vs 2-D comparisons of advantages. But, not many
                                      response about actual 'storytelling'. ... But I differ with you a bit,
                                      in that I think (while going a bit a stray) the discussion did address
                                      some aspects of using 3-D to help tell a story.

                                      I suppose asking the question, "How can 2-D be used for storytelling?"
                                      might have had a similar omni-directional response.

                                      I think that it's a lot easier to say how 2-D or 3-D can be applied to
                                      *this* (specify a story here) story, than it is to give a generic
                                      answer. I tried to respond with an example of a generic application of
                                      using 3-D for telling Act I of 'the hero's journey' (a generic story
                                      formula), in the same way that the music soundtrack, set and costume
                                      colors, and camera focus are used to tell the story... by supporting
                                      the character's emotionals/state, channeling the audience's attention,
                                      or accenting plot points of the story. But the generic question could
                                      only get a generic response.

                                      I think any technical aspect of storytelling in film is about
                                      *supporting* either the underlying emotional current of the scene, or
                                      about echoing the inner emotional state of the character, or
                                      controling/focusing the audiences' attention and point of view. The
                                      medium doesn't *make* the story, it only 'conveys' it. In that
                                      context, you can use the aspect of the 2-D medium to echo, support, or
                                      compell characters or story plot points. And you can use the 3-D
                                      medium in the same way. You use the medium to bring out aspects of the
                                      existing story, but 3-D (or 2-D) doesn't 'create' the story.... it
                                      helps 'tell' the existing story better.

                                      To some extent enhancing the 'experience' of the scene *IS* 3-D
                                      story-TELLING.... which is pretty much on-topic.

                                      I consider the stereo camera placement, toe-in/parallelism, and
                                      interaxial combo as a tool that controls whether the audiences has an
                                      objective vs subjective view of the scene. Also... I equate the
                                      interaxial to the amplitude of the musical soundtrack. I equate
                                      negative parallax to a rack-focus, for extreme directing of the
                                      audience's attention. I mean this loosely, in the sense of their
                                      similarity of use for storytelling purposes. But, I definately think
                                      of these as storytelling tools, in that they are controling the
                                      'telling' of the story... hopefully to make a more powerfully told
                                      story, than had it been told in just 2-D.

                                      -- Brian
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.