Roger Ebert Says 3D Will Never Work, That’s Not True, It Can Be Fixed with Math, and A 3rd Eye

Roger Ebert says 3D will never work. While shooting with a 2 camera rig will never work, CG could be made to work tomorrow, with very little change to the math, and using Kinect style depth mapping  a 2 camera plus depth map system could be used to make 3D work for much more of the audience, and much more of the scene.  Will it be perfect nero burn program free chip? not quite, but you already have that with depth of field in cinematography.

The head ache factor on 3D is pretty high right now, and the contrast is not good, and a dozen other reasons Roger is right.  But it is because Hollywood isn’t filled with math geeks.  Every thing Roger said is true about how things work now, but “never” is a long time herunterladen.

To make 3D "right” images have to be recalculated not from a single Point of view, but from many points of view, and skewed so that no single view is “right” but all of the objects you would look at on the screen are very close to right snip herunterladen.

To do this you can’t simply shoot with two cameras, you have to shoot with 2 or more cameras and a depth mapping device.  Using the 2 images from the cameras and the depth information, you can calculate an entirely new view of the frame.  Instead of simply having the convergence work when you look at the center of focus, you have to find the objects in the image and calculate the convergence to each of them wie kann ich spiele herunterladen.


Roger Ebert Says 3D Will Never Work, That’s Not True, It Can Be Fixed with Math, and A 3rd Eye

The image above shows the differences in convergence required for each object in the space in front of the user.  Normally a shot created with a two camera rig would have a single convergence that looks like the green lines.  Making everything else in the shot “wrong” and hurt your head zh private tax herunterladen.


The above image shows a recalculated version of the objects in the scene herunterladen. (poorly recalculated because of nothing I have is designed to work from above)  While the image becomes distorted, the viewer never notices because you can’t see the whole image at once windows xp service pack 3 download deutsch kostenlos. Your eyes don’t see the whole picture when you are watching on the big screen, your eyes instead dart from object to object.  A good convergence calculation identifies the object in the image, centers a region of convergence on the object, and then distorts the image so that the convergence on each of these objects aligns herunterladen.

Whipping through the counter arguments rushing through all you smart people’s heads… No, you don’t notice that objects near each other don’t quite converge, because even your eyes can’t do this, so you actually end up with a “hyper-real” sensation, kind of like infinite depth of field, or high dynamic range.  Typically we don’t get this extreme sense of convergence and because so many objects in the scene have convergence you get an expanded sense of depth.  Because of this often the depth needs to be reduced, by having the two imaging cameras closer than the 2.5 inches that most adults eyes are apart, so that you end up with a compressed sense of depth.  Good news this also tightens the similarity of the image for the left and right eyes, so you end up with less need to great polarizers so you can run the brightness up access 2013 manual free. Fixing another of Ebert’s complaints.

So Roger, it is not hopeless, 3d can work.  It will have to be mastered separately for the big screen and the typical family television.  It will also require that Hollywood upgrade what they shoot with… James Cameron I’m looking at you.  In the mean time, there are perceptual filters that can do a lot of the work to reduce the headache factor and drastically increase the perceived contrast ratio.  You can check out for some information on this… but generally the 3D movie business doesn’t have to die, it just needs a good infusion of math net framework windows 7 kostenlos.