Comments on: 3D editing secrets

By: Sankar

Sankar — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:45:02 +0000

Anybody can tell me how much time is required to become an expert in 3D Max.

By: Sandro

Sandro — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:58:32 +0000

Pretty interesting 3D rigs and post production tools are offered by 3ality digital http://www.3ality-digital.com.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0000

Instead of 2D transitons – start imagining 3D transitons.

The other consideration is based on this observation – I saw The Ant Bully in 3D. The use of stereographics was terrific, until the end credits, when I nearly puked from motion realated nausea.

If the camera swings violently during and immersive medium as 3D, and the inner ear is saying no movement, then the brain’s conclusion is that there is a poisoning and the best remedy is to do the best to get rid of it quickly. (no other means are tried as they will either kill themselves or be ineffective. )

Unlike the lens and prism experiments of the past, the audience will not get 30 or 40 hours to adapt, they will have a few seconds to a few minutes. Unlike the participants in the vision experiments, they are not volunteers.

Finally, the point of stereo vision is to enhance the recognition of elements in a confusing visual space. This is what stereograms depend on.

By: Art4Med

Art4Med — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:06:42 +0000

Quantel has their standalone dedicated 3D editing system:: surely another is near…….
please at a huge savings over Q?

By: onlinegk

onlinegk — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:19:19 +0000

Hi,

If u have time then plz – say

“which is good film editting computer system configuration?”

By: onlinegk

onlinegk — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:15:34 +0000

Hi,

This is very good blog for our Editting Guys.

Thanks u……

By: Rithban

Rithban — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:48:28 +0000

@3Dfool:

I think only time will tell whether a new cinematic language will need to be learned. It took a little time for people to get used to seeing 2D film a hundred years ago. There were reports and concerns of the same physiological problems back then. These days, raising such concerns would bring derision and laughter because we’ve been raised from children watching video.

The brain and mind are tremendously flexible and adaptable. This is re-enforced by 19th and 20th century experiments with *radically* altering vision (e.g. using glasses that turn everything upside down), which consistently demonstrate that the brain *completely* adapts to radical changes in vision in ten days (mean).

This and my own 3D experiences lead me to not seeing a fundamental difference in brain operation between 2D and 3D. I believe that once people get used to 3D films, the “2D” techniques will be back in play and the concern over nausea, etc. will be forgotten just as the same concerns with 2D film (last century) have been forgotten.

By: 3Dfool

3Dfool — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:00:34 +0000

In your post, you said they are throwing out 100 years of editing techniques. This is true but you have to realize there is a fundamental differences in the way the human brain works in stereo vision and 2D. A new cinematic language must be learned. These techniques of depth of field and directing your eye with a rack focus work in 2D, because the brain accepts them in 2D and they are pleasing. This is not the case with stereo vision. When you look at a scene with shallow depth of field your brain and eyes will attempt to focus it out. When it can’t because the focus is “baked” into the film, this causes eyestrain, fatigue, and nausea. Its fighting your human condition to wander the eye and resolve it. In 3D we are fooling the brain into seeing something that is not real to be perceived as real. and if you eyes can’t wander the frame and choose to focus on far, near, and middle then you as a story teller have lost the battle, because you’ve lost your audience and made the experience very unpleasant.

By: Gopal Balaji

Gopal Balaji — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:39:39 +0000

Steve,

I used Triple Head because of DVI out / in.

By: Werner

Werner — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:57:43 +0000

> Why did you use a triple head to go as opposed to the double?

I guess he used the tripple verion instead of the dual because only the triple version has DVI inputs and aoutputs – of course on may use the triple version with only 2 displays/beamers.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:18:33 +0000

Why did you use a triple head to go as opposed to the double?

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:31:42 +0000

I didn’t think of using a Mac for projection. I suppose you could use multi-screen multi-computer synced systems such as Dataton Watchout ( http://www.dataton.com/watchout ) and Vista Spyder ( http://www.vistasystems.net/what_is_spyder/features.asp ) for stereoscopic projection.

I was thinking mainly about the post element of 3D production. Real 3D and Disney Digital 3D require projectors that can run at 144 frames per second!

By: Gopal Balaji

Gopal Balaji — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:15:14 +0000

I already tried with Final Cut Pro, After Effects and $300 Matrox Triple Head2Go. Only Problem with Final Cut Pro is when i stop the playhead I am able to get 3D by splitting the side by side footage and sending to 2 projectors. The same the case with After Effects. Only problem is when i hit play the display only output single image stretched across 2 monitors.

There are very small workaround need to be done by Adobe / Apple to view with $300 Matrox Triple Head2Go, Polarized 3D using side-by-side technique. More information in coming days.