The Transformers Cine-Power 3D Masks are RealD-compatible passive 3D glasses built into plastic masks shaped like the faces of Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, from the upcoming film Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The masks will work with any RealD movie theater, and are compatible with Vizio Cinema 3D HDTVs and other passive 3D HDTVs. They will retail for $9.99, and will start shipping to stores May 16, six weeks before the film's release.
Showing posts with label 3d lenses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3d lenses. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
3D Glasses? Hasbro Does One Better with Transformers 3D Face Masks
The Transformers Cine-Power 3D Masks are RealD-compatible passive 3D glasses built into plastic masks shaped like the faces of Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, from the upcoming film Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The masks will work with any RealD movie theater, and are compatible with Vizio Cinema 3D HDTVs and other passive 3D HDTVs. They will retail for $9.99, and will start shipping to stores May 16, six weeks before the film's release.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Glasses-Free 3D: Sooner Than You Think?
Glasses-free 3D TVs (also known as "autostereoscopic TVs") are practically the flying cars of CES--everyone wants them, but they never seem to make it to market. Here's a rundown on the state of glasses-free 3D TV, and a list of the companies to look out for over the next year.
Glasses-Free 3D: The Background
Ask your Average Joe consumer when they plan on buying a 3D TV, and the answer is typically something like "3D? Yeah, right. Not until they lose those dumb glasses." Ask your friendly neighborhood TV manufacturer when glasses-free 3D TVs will hit the market, and the answer is typically "Five to ten years", which in tech-speak translates to "I have no idea". That doesn't stop TV manufacturers from showing off prototype glasses-free 3D TVs, mind you--they just never seem to be anywhere close to market.
The reason it's so hard to implement is because the whole principle of a 3D image depends on your eyes seeing two slightly different images. The easiest way to do this is to wear a set of glasses that can use the lenses to change or filter the image slightly--active shutter glasses do this by dimming each lens in rapid succession, while polarized 3D filters use the glasses to show each eye a different image by filtering the light that each eye can see. If you want to do this without glasses, you'll need a specially designed (read: expensive) TV panel, and even the prototypes we've seen can't do this without severely restricting the effect to a fixed distance and angle, meaning that only two or three people at best could get a 3D image.
Glasses-Free From The Big Boys
Several of the major TV manufacturers had prototype glasses-free 3D TVs on the show floor: LG had a few portable displays, Sony had a portable Blu-ray player as well as two full-sized HDTVs (47-inch and 55-inch), and Toshiba had a full-sized 65-inch HDTV as well as a handful of portable Blu-ray players and a laptop.
Of course, none of these TV manufacturers gave even the slightest inkling that they'd be releasing a commercially available model, even for business-oriented digital signage purposes. That's because they're simply not ready.
In addition to the limited viewing range and angle problems mentioned above, the unfortunate fact is that the actual depth of the 3D effect in these autostereoscopic TVs is, frankly, disappointing. It's far too subtle to be exciting, and I often found myself looking for the 3D effect in an image or a clip when I should have been blown away.
For comparison, I was impressed the first time I saw 3D in a movie theater. Then I saw 3D in a home HDTV and was a little bit let down--sure, it was 3D, but the image itself simply wasn't deep enough to make me feel wowed (and it certainly wasn't good enough for me to want to shell out the extra $600 or so that it would have cost to deck my home theater setup out for 3D).
Once I was over the novelty of not having to wear glasses, I quickly realized that the glasses-free 3D TVs somehow manage to make the glasses-required 3D TVs look good. 3D simply isn't fun if you're straining to pick out the 3D effect in each scene or still image, and if you paid a few thousand dollars for a 3D TV that had less depth than a hologram baseball card, it'd be even less fun.
Here Comes A New Challenger
The most interesting take on glasses-free 3D wasn't center stage from Sony or Toshiba. Instead, it came from iPONT, a Hungarian startup buried in the South Hall's Home Theater ghetto. iPONT specializes in designing 3D content for digital signage playback, but they had a prototype glasses-free 3D setup that looked really, really good.
The iPONT setup consisted of a 65-inch autostereoscopic 3D display by Tridelity which hooked into a mysterious device iPONT simply called their "3D TV Box". Unlike the other glasses-free 3D TVs shown at CES, they used clips from YouTube 3D coming from an attached PC. Mind you, these were clips designed for normal glasses-3D TVs sets--the 3D TV Box converted that video signal into a format that the autostereoscopic panel could handle.
The results were comparatively breathtaking. While the viewable positions were just as limited as its fellow TVs from Sony and Toshiba, the actual depth of the 3D images was just as good as the 3D TVs that are out on the market right now. Interestingly enough, they actually managed to do that in a brightly-lit convention center hall, while everyone else's 3D TVs were carefully shrouded in a pitch-black demo room. Whether they used smoke and mirrors or animal sacrifice to pull it off, I don't know, but the results were impressive indeed.
iPONT CTO Andor Pasztor also seemed optimistic about their technology finding a place in the consumer market, maintaining that glasses-free 3D's prohibitive cost was strictly due to a lack of production volume, and not the process of manufacturing an autostereoscopic 3D panel itself. What's more, their proprietary technology--the 3D TV Box--was built entirely with off-the-shelf PC parts, except for one component that is a bit more specialized (but still commercially available). Of course, iPONT is a startup actively looking for partners, so you might want to take their claims of commercial viability with a grain of salt, but compared to the general message coming from Sony and Toshiba ("Not yet") or Samsung ("No thanks"), it gives this HDTV fan hope for the future of 3D.
Check out PCWorld's complete coverage of CES 2011.
Glasses-Free 3D: The Background
Ask your Average Joe consumer when they plan on buying a 3D TV, and the answer is typically something like "3D? Yeah, right. Not until they lose those dumb glasses." Ask your friendly neighborhood TV manufacturer when glasses-free 3D TVs will hit the market, and the answer is typically "Five to ten years", which in tech-speak translates to "I have no idea". That doesn't stop TV manufacturers from showing off prototype glasses-free 3D TVs, mind you--they just never seem to be anywhere close to market.
The reason it's so hard to implement is because the whole principle of a 3D image depends on your eyes seeing two slightly different images. The easiest way to do this is to wear a set of glasses that can use the lenses to change or filter the image slightly--active shutter glasses do this by dimming each lens in rapid succession, while polarized 3D filters use the glasses to show each eye a different image by filtering the light that each eye can see. If you want to do this without glasses, you'll need a specially designed (read: expensive) TV panel, and even the prototypes we've seen can't do this without severely restricting the effect to a fixed distance and angle, meaning that only two or three people at best could get a 3D image.
Glasses-Free From The Big Boys
Several of the major TV manufacturers had prototype glasses-free 3D TVs on the show floor: LG had a few portable displays, Sony had a portable Blu-ray player as well as two full-sized HDTVs (47-inch and 55-inch), and Toshiba had a full-sized 65-inch HDTV as well as a handful of portable Blu-ray players and a laptop.
Of course, none of these TV manufacturers gave even the slightest inkling that they'd be releasing a commercially available model, even for business-oriented digital signage purposes. That's because they're simply not ready.
In addition to the limited viewing range and angle problems mentioned above, the unfortunate fact is that the actual depth of the 3D effect in these autostereoscopic TVs is, frankly, disappointing. It's far too subtle to be exciting, and I often found myself looking for the 3D effect in an image or a clip when I should have been blown away.
For comparison, I was impressed the first time I saw 3D in a movie theater. Then I saw 3D in a home HDTV and was a little bit let down--sure, it was 3D, but the image itself simply wasn't deep enough to make me feel wowed (and it certainly wasn't good enough for me to want to shell out the extra $600 or so that it would have cost to deck my home theater setup out for 3D).
Once I was over the novelty of not having to wear glasses, I quickly realized that the glasses-free 3D TVs somehow manage to make the glasses-required 3D TVs look good. 3D simply isn't fun if you're straining to pick out the 3D effect in each scene or still image, and if you paid a few thousand dollars for a 3D TV that had less depth than a hologram baseball card, it'd be even less fun.
Here Comes A New Challenger
The most interesting take on glasses-free 3D wasn't center stage from Sony or Toshiba. Instead, it came from iPONT, a Hungarian startup buried in the South Hall's Home Theater ghetto. iPONT specializes in designing 3D content for digital signage playback, but they had a prototype glasses-free 3D setup that looked really, really good.
The iPONT setup consisted of a 65-inch autostereoscopic 3D display by Tridelity which hooked into a mysterious device iPONT simply called their "3D TV Box". Unlike the other glasses-free 3D TVs shown at CES, they used clips from YouTube 3D coming from an attached PC. Mind you, these were clips designed for normal glasses-3D TVs sets--the 3D TV Box converted that video signal into a format that the autostereoscopic panel could handle.
The results were comparatively breathtaking. While the viewable positions were just as limited as its fellow TVs from Sony and Toshiba, the actual depth of the 3D images was just as good as the 3D TVs that are out on the market right now. Interestingly enough, they actually managed to do that in a brightly-lit convention center hall, while everyone else's 3D TVs were carefully shrouded in a pitch-black demo room. Whether they used smoke and mirrors or animal sacrifice to pull it off, I don't know, but the results were impressive indeed.
iPONT CTO Andor Pasztor also seemed optimistic about their technology finding a place in the consumer market, maintaining that glasses-free 3D's prohibitive cost was strictly due to a lack of production volume, and not the process of manufacturing an autostereoscopic 3D panel itself. What's more, their proprietary technology--the 3D TV Box--was built entirely with off-the-shelf PC parts, except for one component that is a bit more specialized (but still commercially available). Of course, iPONT is a startup actively looking for partners, so you might want to take their claims of commercial viability with a grain of salt, but compared to the general message coming from Sony and Toshiba ("Not yet") or Samsung ("No thanks"), it gives this HDTV fan hope for the future of 3D.
Check out PCWorld's complete coverage of CES 2011.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
3D or 3-D: the big question
There is a great confusion within the 3-D stereoscopic industry regarding the correct use of the term '3-D'. So what is it: 3D, 3-D, 3-Dimensional or StereoVisionScope-o-Rama? And should we actually still be putting the '3-D' label on a 3-D film poster?

Jaws 3-D Film Poster
Before computer graphics existed, right up to the 1980's, the term '3D' referred to both Stereoscopic imagery and Stop-Motion work and sometimes even multi-planing 2D imagery. The two didn't get confused because Animation and Live-action were in completely different leagues. For example, the Disney short 'Old Mill' (1937), was billed as a '3-D cartoon'. By that they meant multi-planing. The Fleischer studio went further and introduced multiplaning of cells on top of a real set: the 'Tabletop 3D Background Process' in 'Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves' (1937). Both processes were billed as 3D and 3-D, but neither was Stereoscopic.

Still of Popeye in the Tabletop 3D process
At the same time, since 1920 shorts and films have been released stereoscopically in theatres, billing themselves as '3D', '3-D', '3-Dimension' and 'Third Dimension', depending on the whim of the PR department.

Poster for Audioscopiks (1935)
There have been numerous creative terms used as well, such as 'DimensionScope', 'FreddyVision', 'Future Dimension' and 'HorrorScope' (it is a long list) and this tradition continues to today, with terms such as 'Fusion 3-D'. In 3-D, little changes over the years...
Since the 1980's, in general, '3D' is used to describe '3D CGI', so simply computer generated imagery, while '3-D' most often refers to Stereoscopic imagery.

Ultimate 1980's 3-D film fodder
One way of avoiding confusion is to employ the word 'Stereoscopic' whenever you write '3-D', or 'Stereo 3-D' for short (an abbreviation coined by James Cameron). Personally, I find the shortest abbreviation of 'S3D' or 'S-3D' (coined by Neil Schneider of MTBS3D) ugly and even confusing so I'd never use that.
On a side note, interestingly, techniques such as Pulfrich and Chromadepth should not be be called '3-D' at all, as they are not based on two unique images combined to form a single volumetric image, but rather play on the brain's laziness or confusion to create the illusion of depth (certainly not volume).
And then I have had Italians talk to me about '3D Lenses', which will be a literal translation from Italian. I am sure the Spanish use a similar term.
Still, 'Stereoscopic 3-D' is the international standard term and my advice is to keep using '3-D' in stead of '3D' when talking about two-eye imagery.

1950's 2D animated 3-D with Bugs Bunny
With modern day advertising and PR press releases, what strikes me as odd is the paradox of what Stereoscopic 3-D is made out to be and supposed to become, according to the over-quoted Katzenberg, Schklair and Cameron, and how it is marketed time and again. The famous ‘3-D’ logo on film posters should say enough of what 3-D is to producers and distributors: a marketing tool.
If 3-D is supposed to be the new standard and all films are supposed to be shot in 3-D, then why put the 3-D logo on the poster? And if people can choose between seeing a film in 2-D or in 3-D how can that be justified in artistic terms? Is the film shot for 3-D presentation or does the 3-D not really matter? Because do we offer cinema-goers the option of seeing films in black&white or silent, and is the fact that a film is shot in colour and with sound advertised on film posters? No, of course not, because that would be silly, right? Yet this practice is par for the course with 3-D.

My Bloody Valentine: 'modern' 3-D
with classic subject matter
Worryingly, punters are indeed already opting to see the 2-D version of 3-D films at their local cinema and have started lambasting plans for shooting upcoming films in 3-D in film forums because of indifference towards the artistic merits of eye-poking 3-D shots, the $2 surcharge for 3-D cinema tickets and an aversion to wearing 3-D glasses.
So I suggest this statement: that 3-D is not so much an evolution of cinema in the line of sound, colour, 3-D, as different medium, somewhere inbetween film and theatre. But that is a different discussion altogether. Actually, click here for that discussion...

Jaws 3-D Film Poster
Before computer graphics existed, right up to the 1980's, the term '3D' referred to both Stereoscopic imagery and Stop-Motion work and sometimes even multi-planing 2D imagery. The two didn't get confused because Animation and Live-action were in completely different leagues. For example, the Disney short 'Old Mill' (1937), was billed as a '3-D cartoon'. By that they meant multi-planing. The Fleischer studio went further and introduced multiplaning of cells on top of a real set: the 'Tabletop 3D Background Process' in 'Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves' (1937). Both processes were billed as 3D and 3-D, but neither was Stereoscopic.

Still of Popeye in the Tabletop 3D process
At the same time, since 1920 shorts and films have been released stereoscopically in theatres, billing themselves as '3D', '3-D', '3-Dimension' and 'Third Dimension', depending on the whim of the PR department.

Poster for Audioscopiks (1935)
There have been numerous creative terms used as well, such as 'DimensionScope', 'FreddyVision', 'Future Dimension' and 'HorrorScope' (it is a long list) and this tradition continues to today, with terms such as 'Fusion 3-D'. In 3-D, little changes over the years...
Since the 1980's, in general, '3D' is used to describe '3D CGI', so simply computer generated imagery, while '3-D' most often refers to Stereoscopic imagery.

Ultimate 1980's 3-D film fodder
One way of avoiding confusion is to employ the word 'Stereoscopic' whenever you write '3-D', or 'Stereo 3-D' for short (an abbreviation coined by James Cameron). Personally, I find the shortest abbreviation of 'S3D' or 'S-3D' (coined by Neil Schneider of MTBS3D) ugly and even confusing so I'd never use that.
On a side note, interestingly, techniques such as Pulfrich and Chromadepth should not be be called '3-D' at all, as they are not based on two unique images combined to form a single volumetric image, but rather play on the brain's laziness or confusion to create the illusion of depth (certainly not volume).
And then I have had Italians talk to me about '3D Lenses', which will be a literal translation from Italian. I am sure the Spanish use a similar term.
Still, 'Stereoscopic 3-D' is the international standard term and my advice is to keep using '3-D' in stead of '3D' when talking about two-eye imagery.

1950's 2D animated 3-D with Bugs Bunny
With modern day advertising and PR press releases, what strikes me as odd is the paradox of what Stereoscopic 3-D is made out to be and supposed to become, according to the over-quoted Katzenberg, Schklair and Cameron, and how it is marketed time and again. The famous ‘3-D’ logo on film posters should say enough of what 3-D is to producers and distributors: a marketing tool.
If 3-D is supposed to be the new standard and all films are supposed to be shot in 3-D, then why put the 3-D logo on the poster? And if people can choose between seeing a film in 2-D or in 3-D how can that be justified in artistic terms? Is the film shot for 3-D presentation or does the 3-D not really matter? Because do we offer cinema-goers the option of seeing films in black&white or silent, and is the fact that a film is shot in colour and with sound advertised on film posters? No, of course not, because that would be silly, right? Yet this practice is par for the course with 3-D.

My Bloody Valentine: 'modern' 3-D
with classic subject matter
Worryingly, punters are indeed already opting to see the 2-D version of 3-D films at their local cinema and have started lambasting plans for shooting upcoming films in 3-D in film forums because of indifference towards the artistic merits of eye-poking 3-D shots, the $2 surcharge for 3-D cinema tickets and an aversion to wearing 3-D glasses.
So I suggest this statement: that 3-D is not so much an evolution of cinema in the line of sound, colour, 3-D, as different medium, somewhere inbetween film and theatre. But that is a different discussion altogether. Actually, click here for that discussion...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)