Films converted to 3D - Possible?

[Ashles]

I have just come across this story:

Filmmakers tout 3D

Okay, if they want to make future films 3D then that's great and sounds like fun.

But they are talking about a company that converts any 2D film into 3D.

How would that be possible? Surely they wuld need the images from 2 viewpoints in order to to fill in the information slightly hidden by foreground objects that creates a stereoscopic image.

Anyone know how this is supposed to work?

 

[Donks]

Duplicate each frame. Shift the position of the objects in one frame to simulate the view from the other eye. The distance you shift each object depends on the distance to the camera, the closer it is, the more you shift it. Fill any gaps in the image, by hand probably. When showing the film, one lens gets blacked out on odd frames, the other on even frames.

 

[rppa]

Duplicate each frame. Shift the position of the objects in one frame to simulate the view from the other eye. The distance you shift each object depends on the distance to the camera, the closer it is, the more you shift it. Fill any gaps in the image, by hand probably.

OK, all that sounds plausible, and probably a lot lik what happens when they colorize black and white films. Some artist has to isolate every object in every scene, do some manual editing, and then probably a computer can track the same objects through subsequent frames.

When showing the film, one lens gets blacked out on odd frames, the other on even frames.

Why? And wouldn't that give a noticeable flicker?

 

[patnray]

Duplicate each frame. Shift the position of the objects in one frame to simulate the view from the other eye. The distance you shift each object depends on the distance to the camera, the closer it is, the more you shift it.

To be most effective you would have to know the characteristics of the camera lens. But this is certainly possible with software.

Fill any gaps in the image, by hand probably.

Much of the fill in could probably be done with software and a few simple rules, I think.

When showing the film, one lens gets blacked out on odd frames, the other on even frames.

 

[Donks]

Why?

Because you need to show the left and right eyes different images. The correct images. One gets the original frame, the other gets the touched up frame.

And wouldn't that give a noticeable flicker?

The eyes sees at something like 20 images per second. As long as you can display the images faster than that, there will be no flicker.
Now, I don't know if for this sytem, they'd play the film at something like 50 frames per second, because you have twice as many frames to get through, or if playing it at ~24 (so you'd use half the original frames, and only touch up the other half of the frames) the brain doesn't mind because it has the info from the other eye.

 

[Donks]

To be most effective you would have to know the characteristics of the camera lens. But this is certainly possible with software.

To use the info from the camera lens you're going to need to know the exact position of the camera relative to the scene, and the position of each object relative to each other. Assigning a distance value to different objects and different parts of an object by hand may be easier. Then the computer shifts depending on the distance alone.

Much of the fill in could probably be done with software and a few simple rules, I think.

Yes, for constant patterns or solids it could be done with software. But for any sort of complex texture you'd need to do it by hand, in case the camera shifts position and you suddenly are presented with what was actually there. You'd get a lot of inconsistencies if you don't use the correct information, and using multiple frames with software would need to do pixel matching on all frames, which may be unnecessary if you have grunts that can do the work.

 

[Mercutio]

I have hand-drawn stereoscope slides--the calculations for retinal disparity are straightforward (can be done by eye, of course--Dali did some paintings that were stereoscopic!--but for films, calculating would be far better). For films like the Star Wars series, where so much is digital to begin with, it is theoretically simple, if mind-bogglingly huge, to assign distances to each digital object and adjust retinal disparity in accordance with that. For analog film, somebody is going to have to define different areas as nearer or further away in order to do the same thing. For extremely close objects it might be difficult, and new digital views for one eye may have to be constructed to match the original film for the other eye. (for an example of what I mean, hold your hand close to your face and point at your right eye with your finger. That would be the original shot of someone pointing at you. Now look at that finger with each eye alternately, and see the huge difference in image. The second image would have to be computer generated--or painted by had, I guess--, if the first was the only print we have of the original film.)

As for the flicker factor, I have used that sort of 3D goggle here at work. I think I get a hint of a flicker (it might be imagination) if I intentionally look up or down or left or right, so that the computer screen (the source of the video) is in my far periphery (more sensitive, but less accurate), but for normal viewing, I have not noticed a flicker from a computer monitor. I don't know what the frames-per-second are on the new movie technology (and your link won't open for my computer, which I think is my fault totally), but I have heard that the price of the new digital projectors is ... daunting.

That said...I have always loved 3D movies, from my first "creature from the black lagoon" experience with blue and red lenses, to "Jaws 3 in 3D" shown using polarized light on a special metal screen...I can't wait for an IMAX 3D showing of ...well, just about anything! 3D movies seem to make movie-makers really stupid; they will add anything that is an excuse to show off an explosion, or something thrown at the audience, or (a Vincent Price movie) a stupid yo-yo trick! I love it! But taking a movie that is already good....and adding this technology? Sign me up!

 

[wahrheit]

Huh? Did I understand correctly -- make a 3D movie out of an "old" 2D movie? Can't be nothing but "fake" 3D, not real 3D. The original 2D movie simply lacks the information. The result might give some sort of 3D experience, but not the real thing like shooting with 2 lenses in the first place.

 

[CBL4]

It is possible to make certain things have some 3D appearance. I have an excellent TV and sometimes there is some obvious 3D to it. I am not sure how it is done but Philips has an algorithm that shows depth in some circumstances.

CBL

 

[Pragmatist]

I have just come across this story:

Filmmakers tout 3D

Okay, if they want to make future films 3D then that's great and sounds like fun.

But they are talking about a company that converts any 2D film into 3D.

How would that be possible? Surely they wuld need the images from 2 viewpoints in order to to fill in the information slightly hidden by foreground objects that creates a stereoscopic image.

Anyone know how this is supposed to work?

It's not clear if they actually mean converting any old 2d movies to new 3d. There is some ambiguity in the statements - when they say convert 2d to 3d they may be referring to movies shot from dual angles already, and are simply referring to the processing of the dual scenes into single images for the 3d output.

They also mention clear glasses instead of the old red/green type - I would imagine that they are using polarized light. The glasses would contain polarizers, vertical for one eye and horizontal for the other, and each perspective would be played with opposite polarization.

 

[davefoc]

Color me as one who wishes this three D crap would go away. I have never enjoyed any experience I have had with it. I don't enjoy 3 D snap pictures in anyway more than 2 D pictures and I find the 3D Imax experience annoying. I don't want to watch a movie through goggles.

I don't want somebody to invent a way to make 3D pictures out of 2D I want somebody to univnvent the whole 3D idea.

 

[wahrheit]

Color me as one who wishes this three D crap would go away. I have never enjoyed any experience I have had with it. ...

Fine with me, my right eye's vision is down to 10% since I was born, so I couldn't care less about 3D, anyway.

 

[Mercutio]

Color me as one who wishes this three D crap would go away. I have never enjoyed any experience I have had with it. I don't enjoy 3 D snap pictures in anyway more than 2 D pictures and I find the 3D Imax experience annoying. I don't want to watch a movie through goggles.

I don't want somebody to invent a way to make 3D pictures out of 2D I want somebody to univnvent the whole 3D idea.

You know...your avatar would look so much more impressive in 3D. Not everyone's would, but yours in particular reminds me of why so many old stereoscope slides are of, say, the badlands and canyon areas.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Mercutio, I noticed you liked 3D. I thought it might have to do with your artistic, poetic thing.

I have had two kids and they both have had those stereographic slide viewers and they both seemed to have enjoyed them a bit. When I look through them the 3D effect always seems a little strange. Like everything in the world is 2D, but all the 2D things are placed at different distances from the observer.

As to the avatar, there's something in the scene for which there aren't enough pixels in the avatar to make visible. It's on the top of half dome in Yosemite and under those two rocks that look a kind of pup tent is a guy. You can climb through the rocks and crawl into it. When you stick your head out you are looking 3000 feet straight down to the valley floor.

 

[alfaniner]

Post from the future:

George Lucas to Re-Release Star Wars in 3-D

Dateline May 25, 2007

George Lucas announced today, on the 30th anniversary of the first release of the film, that he will be re-releasing the original Star Wars Episode IV in a 3-D format. Each frame will be run through a computer to determine the separation of the images and a new 3-D image created. Viewers will not have to wear special glasses as the film will be shown on a special screen made for the process. "I always intended for Star Wars to be in 3-D, but the technology didn't exist in the middle 1970's or I would have made it that way", Lucas said. "Oh, and I'm adding some Ewoks to the Mos Eisley scene."

 

[Drooper]

Of course films can be made into 3D, but some would work better than others.


It is called the stage version.

 

[Mercutio]

Hi Mercutio, I noticed you liked 3D. I thought it might have to do with your artistic, poetic thing.

But that's all just an act....

I have had two kids and they both have had those stereographic slide viewers and they both seemed to have enjoyed them a bit. When I look through them the 3D effect always seems a little strange. Like everything in the world is 2D, but all the 2D things are placed at different distances from the observer.

There are different sorts of those things. I never cared for the mattel plastic deallies with the circular slides. They work for me, but the images are so small that detail is lost. I think the effect you speak of is partly a result of that. (and don't get me started on the photos that create one single 3D image from 2 shots, like the 3D baseball cards. I hate them.) The Victorian stereoscopes use a bigger image, and those (usually) have a much nicer effect. The detail is magnificent on some of them. Also, people played around with them--for instance, by changing the distance between the lenses when you take the shot, you can manipulate retinal disparity and distort the perceived distance when you view the shots. For instance, you can make the moon really appear spherical, rather than as a round disc. You can overemphasize distances to make a scene like your avatar even more stark. Stereoscopic images taken from spyplanes also can take advantage of exaggerated disparity to see shapes of buildings even when they are well camouflaged.

As to the avatar, there's something in the scene for which there aren't enough pixels in the avatar to make visible. It's on the top of half dome in Yosemite and under those two rocks that look a kind of pup tent is a guy. You can climb through the rocks and crawl into it. When you stick your head out you are looking 3000 feet straight down to the valley floor.

Coooooooolllll See, now, that is the sort of thing that cries out for 3D. Ansel Adams's pics are beautiful, but they don't show the incredible distances involved in canyons. Plus...3D pics are very useful for archaeology. Because the math is so straightforward, locating objects accurately is made much simpler with those shots than with a single shot, in which size and distance of objects can be conflated.

I suppose here would be the place to mention that, like with any new technology, the early stereoscopes also were used for porn. Any bets as to how much time elapses between Star Wars in 3D and, say, Star Whores in 3D?

 

[Red Siegfried]

If you're red-green color deficient like me, sometimes the real 3D world looks even more 3D. I'll try to explain.

Sometimes you can get red and green objects next to each other, particularly on a flat piece of paper like in a book, or a print on wallpaper, but occasionally fully 3D objects, like a red golf ball on green grass, and you can see the border between them kind of waver and flicker and on some occasions, it looks like one side or the other stands out and wiggles or bounces around slightly. Bizarre, but interesting.

Any other color-blind folks out there experience this? I've never really investigated this further, but I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who has seen this and there must be some literature out there explaining it.

I promise, I didn't take the brown acid.

And for those who are wondering, no, the old red/blue 3D movies and comics, etc. work fine for me.

 

[wahrheit]

If you're red-green color deficient like me, sometimes the real 3D world looks even more 3D. I'll try to explain.

Sometimes you can get red and green objects next to each other, particularly on a flat piece of paper like in a book, or a print on wallpaper, but occasionally fully 3D objects, like a red golf ball on green grass, and you can see the border between them kind of waver and flicker and on some occasions, it looks like one side or the other stands out and wiggles or bounces around slightly. Bizarre, but interesting.

Any other color-blind folks out there experience this? I've never really investigated this further, but I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who has seen this and there must be some literature out there explaining it.

I promise, I didn't take the brown acid.

And for those who are wondering, no, the old red/blue 3D movies and comics, etc. work fine for me.

My 3D vision, if you want to call it "3D", works the following:

Since my brain basically uses only one eye since birth, it makes my head subconsciously move slightly or, better said, makes use of the slightest movement of my head to calculate all the depth data etc. I remember when I was a small kid I actually had problems - sometimes - pouring water into a glass because of the lack of 3D vision. With the years the brain learned to compensate for that and now I can estimate distance as good as anybody using two eyes. Well, unless you keep me from moving at least a milimeter

Wasn't much fun for me as a kid, but I really am not annoyed by it now for many years. Haven't thought of it for a decade before this thread popped up. But it's a fascinating thing that shows what our grey matter is capable of in terms of adaption.

 

[Mercutio]

My 3D vision, if you want to call it "3D", works the following:

Since my brain basically uses only one eye since birth, it makes my head subconsciously move slightly or, better said, makes use of the slightest movement of my head to calculate all the depth data etc. I remember when I was a small kid I actually had problems - sometimes - pouring water into a glass because of the lack of 3D vision. With the years the brain learned to compensate for that and now I can estimate distance as good as anybody using two eyes. Well, unless you keep me from moving at least a milimeter

Wasn't much fun for me as a kid, but I really am not annoyed by it now for many years. Haven't thought of it for a decade before this thread popped up. But it's a fascinating thing that shows what our grey matter is capable of in terms of adaption.

Would you mind if I used this description in my sensation/perception lectures?

What you are describing is the depth cue "motion parallax". Anyone can experience what you are talking about by picking a scene with some objects at various distances away (I have my students hold their hands in front of them and look variously at their hand and at me in front of the room) and close one eye, then noticing the relative movement of objects as they move their heads slightly left and right. Focus on the near object, and distant objects move; focus on the distant object, and near objects move. The nearer the object, the more movement. And yes, it is the same information as retinal disparity, but presented in a different way, and yes, isn't it cool what the brain can do!?!?! (BTW, this is the depth-perception method used by owls, which is why they do that cool head-bobbing thing.)

I have heard from multiple sources, but never remember the precise name, that there was (is?) an NFL wide receiver who is also monocular, and uses this cue to judge how to catch the ball. The man makes his living using depth perception--which tells you that your one-eyed version is every bit as functional as binocular vision.

Um...sorry, though, the 3D films won't work for you. (oh...not that it matters, but Mrs. Merc has the same cyclopian characteristic as you do. Did you have an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?)

And lastly...of course I would call what you do 3D!