Today, a personal note – or rather an open question to all of you. In the past few weeks, I have noticed that more and more buyers are looking for content with negative parallax in preparation for the upcoming 3D mobiles/tablets. This is contrary to the traditional VOD and broadcasting clients who strictly avoid the pop-out effect. I won’t bore you with why this is the case or write about different “viewing experiences” based on screen sizes. My question is rather, can production companies repurpose existing content, or create both effects in post production from the same footage. I honestly don’t know. This post is read by many knowledgable 3D experts, please do get in touch via email, Twitter, or on this blog. Let’s discuss!
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
3DContentBlog 
Hmmm, my quick answer is:
It’s not always possible, easy, or even ‘right’ to push or pull the convergence point either in front of or behind the focal plane in post. It’s almost always better to shoot with the desired deliverable in mind, just like 2D on multiple platforms [number and size of CU/ECU shots, etc].
Thanks for opening this topic Torsten…
My short answer is NO, you can not re-purpose live-action content shot for positive parallax and make it look good in negative on a small screen. I agree with Seth above that content should be shot and converged based on the intended platform. For tablet/mobile display with high negative parallax, I believe it SHOULD be shot specifically for that platform.
Technically, you can take live action 3D content that is predominantly positive parallax (TV, movies) and simply re-converge the background at the screen plane. This will throw everything in the shot into negative parallax. All the object along the frame edges that will float uncomfortably in the foreground – what many consider bad 3D.
Many IMAX films airing on 3net have done just the opposite. They’ve taken content shot with high negative parallax for display in on a giant screen theatre, and re-converged the content to place the background into positive parallax. That’s fine going from a larger screen to a tv set.
For tablets and mobile devices, buyers are probably wanting greater 3D depth as well, say 6-8% separation or more, since viewers can handle greater 3D on smaller displays. By contrast, the current specifications for 3D TV content are for an overall 2-3% separation, mostly positive.
There’s so much confusion out there about 3D that I think it’s essential to educate the market, including the buyers, about what’s possible or not based on what looks comfortable and good… or not.
Cheers,
@seanfwhite
graham_ Graham Wallington
@3DContentBlog u can create z space in post by moving convergence back, but whether it looks good depends on content.
Jan 12, 6:35 AM via Twitter for iPad
this may be a helpful intro for some.
http://depthbeyond.com/blog/?p=83
From the technical point of view animation content can be re-rendered with other camera parameters, and some objects will pop out appearing in a negative parallax. But while watching this adapted video our eyes will suffer of uncomfortable stereo. The main problem is that production companies should primarily purpose objects popping out for specific dramatic moments, and these moments must be plot grounded and well thought.
Working with a negative parallax demands following some ancient saying: “Modus in rebus”. In other words, if animation content was made without taking into consideration any specific limitations of comfortable stereo, the mechanical change of camera parameters will not give the desired effect.
Obviously that for live-action content we cannot achieve watchable negative parallax by any manipulations on the post-production stage. We should make new footage. Or we have to divide a picture (a scene) into several layers and make different settings of parallax for every layer. But then we shall have another problem of “giant head” effect caused by wrong correlation of stereo pair base and objects scales. IMAX probably converged their films because of this very effect. Anyway it’s too expensive and non-effective.
I do not agree with the above comment about TVs and negative parallax for them. Making a stereo content for different platforms we consider that exactly TVs have the best potential for exploitation of popping out of screen objects in a negative parallax. Watching TV you can really enjoy maximal immersion in virtual stereo-reality if the content is done taking into account all stereoscopic rules! But these rules are different for making stereo supposed to be viewed on TV platform or on cinema screen.
We have a number of stereoscopic samples with good examples of negative parallax in animation content made specially for TV platform, not adapted or converged.
You can play around with the 3D Go Pro’s on a really basic level and use free software to change the parallax – I did some test’s myself on YouTube – It is great to see how you can manipulate 3D for a small screen or even the off the shelf point and shoot Fuji camera that records video. I think it’s possible to push the negative more for the small screen in post, I’ve seen that done, plus it would be really fun to just shoot for a mobile as you could take more risks on the filming day. Mobile is the future for sure and this is where 3D can take strong ownership of the market and rival the mobile apps and game’s business.
hi there your story is wrong you forgot there is a new 3d technology you left out called stereo scopic 3d for mobile and tablets best part no zero 3d glasses glass less thats 3ds 3ds xl lg thrill 3d evo and some tables useing paralax screen no glasses required or also called stereo scopic 3d thats the future of 3d