Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters

This is topic New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001197

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-21-2012, 11:01 PM:

New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters New Technique Could Lead to Glasses-Free 3-D in Theaters

quote:
Watching 3-D movies generally means suffering through two things: crappy plotlines that favor spectacle over substance and the need to wear some annoying, dorky glasses. Scientists may have solved one of these frustrations. (You might be able to guess which.)

Researchers in South Korea have created a new method that would allow moviegoers to simply sit down and start watching a 3-D movie with no extra gear necessary. The research was published today in Optics Express.

“This is essentially the next step that was required for 3-D display technology without glasses,” said physicist John Koshel, who studies optical science at the University of Arizona and was not associated with the new work.

We see the world in three dimensions because our eyes are spaced slightly apart, each looking out at a different angle. Your brain combines the information from both eyes, determining where each object in your field of view is to generate depth perception.

To achieve 3-D movies or television, the trick is to send a slightly different, offset picture to each eye. Special glasses handle this task for most modern 3-D blockbuster movies, with each lens only letting in one polarization of light. Polarization describes the direction in which the electromagnetic waves in light oscillate, either up-down, left-right, or something in between.

When you sit down to watch something like Avatar, two projectors are displaying two images on the same screen, with the light from one polarized left-right and the other up-down. This is why the screen looks kind of blurry when you take the glasses off – there are two movies playing on it at the same time. The 3-D glasses correct the situation by separating these images, allowing the left-projector movie to go to your left eye and the right-projector movie into your right.

But needing two projectors perfectly synced in a theater is awkward and expensive. There are some glasses-free methods around, where a special filter covering the screen sends some of the light to your right eye and some to your left, creating a 3-D image. This is the technology in Nintendo’s 3DS gaming system and several smart phone displays, such as the HTC Evo 3D. In a movie theater, this glasses-free 3-D technique would require the projector to sit behind the screen, but most theaters are not designed for this.

The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they’ve always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.

The new method is less cumbersome than both the current two-projector and the behind-the-screen-projector methods. But because it blocks some of the light to your different eyes, the current image resolution is fairly low. Koshel expects that 3-D movie companies will be interested in upgrading the method’s abilities and resolution to bring glasses-free 3-D to the masses.

“This technology is still in its infancy, but it’s a new step that was hidden for a long time,” Koshel said.

Posted by Yinghong Wu (Member # 6908) on 08-21-2012, 11:26 PM:

so cool,let it's go quickly.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-22-2012, 05:03 AM:

Glasses-free 3D is there for decades. The problem is to make it work for large audiences. So far, there is not a single technique available that does it.

- Carsten

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-22-2012, 05:16 AM:

quote:
We see the world in three dimensions because our eyes are spaced slightly apart, each looking out at a different angle. Your brain combines the information from both eyes, determining where each object in your field of view is to generate depth perception.

This statement is also only partly true. Close one of your eyes in the real world and everything doesn't suddenly look flat. Your brain uses much more than the difference between each eye to percieve 3D. That's why any 3D effect that is ever designed for more than 1 person to look at simultaneously will NEVER look real and will always look like an effect.

The brain uses the slight movement of the head (as well as other distance cues) to determine what objects are in front of what objects.

Stereoscopic 3D is an effect and nothing more. It is also an annoying effect that doesn't add anything to any movie or TV show. Please stop making 3D movies. I hate them and even when you watch in 2D there are always those stupid shots that are obviously there just to show off the stupid 3D effect.

The industry should try an experiment and charge more for the 2D version. I'd pay more NOT to see 3D if I can see it on the biggest/best screen which is always used by the 3D version.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-22-2012, 06:58 AM:

I'd be very curious to see how this effect works when sitting off-center.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-22-2012, 08:07 AM:

> The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.

I'm still confused. I assume this is something akin to how lenticular 3D works for still photography, but how do these "vertical" columns prevent both eyes from seeing the image?

Posted by Chuck McGregor (Member # 6826) on 08-22-2012, 08:54 AM:

From the description it sure sounds like some sort of lenticular technology. I happen to still have this print:

"Mass production became a reality on February 25, 1964, when a Look Magazine issue featured the first ink-printed postcard sized 'parallax panoramagram' [a] black and white still life of the bust of Thomas Edison surrounded by some of his more famous inventions."

For what it's worth: History of Lenticular Technology

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-22-2012, 05:48 PM:

This is BS. They guy who wrote this doesn't know what he is talking about. Two projectors? He hasen't got a clue. What he wrote makes no sense.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-22-2012, 08:37 PM:

There are digital 3D setups using two projectors. It's not commonplace but they're out there.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-22-2012, 09:10 PM:

This sounds like lenticular to me. But that's not "new technology." I recall reading about some Russian experimentation with this in the July 1983 issue of American Cinematographer -- either there or perhaps in a book I got from Chris Condon of Stereovision in the late 1980s. In any event, glasses-free projected 3D via lenticular has been tried and the problem was that it suffered from a very limited "sweet spot."

But, y'know -- I have a hunch people would tolerate the glasses if they were convinced that effect was truly necessary. Trouble is -- everyone knows it's not necessary. As far as movies go, 3D is a technology in search of an application.

Good storytelling in 2D has a proven track record. Fix the storytelling problem and the very "need" for 3D goes away entirely.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-23-2012, 12:16 AM:

Is it like the 3D Nintendo DS hand held game unit?

But, can agree with the one statement: Does it go with the feature to make it worthwhile?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-23-2012, 06:01 AM:

As I said, you can buy glasses-less autostereoscopic displays for years now. You can see them in public places.

Just that no one knows how to apply the system to a large audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy

- Carsten

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-23-2012, 06:43 AM:

Manny is correct. In the 1940s, the Soviets had a similar system, using a lenticular screen. No glasses were required, but one had to keep their head perfectly still or they would lose the 3-D effect. The 1947 film ROBINSON CRUSOE was the only feature presented in this manner, from what I've read.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-23-2012, 07:47 AM:

Aside from that - I never understand why glasses are such a problem? A large number of people wear them everyday, and a lot of people even wear them for fun or style reasons.

Yes, for those with optical glasses, adding another pair for 3D is sometimes cumbersome, but apart from that? I'd have more issues with carrying a bucket of popcorn and/or coke than a pair of glasses. At least I don't see why glasses-free 3D would finally be the optimal 3D experience. From what we know about autostereoscopic displays, it is very likely that the quality of the 3D vision will actually be lower, that is, more ghosting and artifacts, while some 3D systems with glasses are now very good. I don't wear normal glasses, but I don't care at all if I have to put some on for a 3D movie.

- Carsten

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2012, 09:20 AM:

Current 3D provides a picture that's "not as good as a regular picture, but close enough for most people." I'll bet glasses-free 3D will provide a picture that's "not as good as regular 3D, but close enough for most people."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2012, 12:39 PM:

I think most people's problem with the glasses is the comfort of them and/or having to keep track of them in the dark, especially with kids.

Either people aren't used to wearing glasses, or if they are, the cheap plastic frames aren't comfortable. I sure wish Dolby would make a 'clip-on' version of theirs.

That's one thing I'll have to give Real-D -- their glasses win on comfort. Dolby's newer design is better than the original.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 08-23-2012, 12:46 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'll bet glasses-free 3D will provide a picture that's "not as good as regular 3D, but close enough for most people."

And probably a far worse image for 2D content unless another screen is used.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-23-2012, 01:49 PM:

I wear glasses all the time and when I put the Real D glasses on over them I really don't notice that they are even there.

So the Real D glasses don't bother me at all.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-23-2012, 03:54 PM:

My personal suspicion is that people who enjoy 3D movies don't mind the glasses.

This whole nonsense about "getting rid of the glasses" is just a means of keeping 3D around a little longer instead of letting it fade away (one more time).

Speaking for myself -- the glasses are NOT the reason I stopped going to 3D movies. The main issue is that 3D doesn't represent an improvement (or even an "enhancement") over the 2D aesthetic. And then there's the up charge -- why pay more for something that I don't consider to be better?

Getting rid of the glasses won't suddenly get me on the 3D bandwagon.

3D has done its job -- the digital conversion is happening. Time to move on.

Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 08-23-2012, 04:20 PM:

People are probably under the impression that glasses-free 3D would be upcharge-free 3D.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2012, 04:54 PM:

John - you are probably right. But, it'll be another huge outlay for equipment and/or screen, so that's not gonna happen.

quote: Manny Knowles
just a means of keeping 3D around a little longer instead of letting it fade away (one more time).

It's still doing anywhere from 35 to 60% of the grosses for 3D movies, depending on the movie. Been that way for a while. Those are people who really do like 3-D, as impossible as it might seem to haters. I do wish Pixar and Dreamworks would back off of doing ALL animation in 3D though.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-23-2012, 09:37 PM:

I won't buy into those statistics right off the bat. There are ways to manipulate that data.

If 60% of all shows are in 3D then it stands to reason that 60% of the gross could be from 3D.

Also, the percentage of 3D in primetime versus off-peak will be a factor.

I suspect the box office revenue for a given movie would be the same if the entire release was 2D.

I can think of three films that I insisted on seeing in 3D -- (a) "Avatar"; (b) "Cave of Forgotten Dreams"; and (c) the re-release of "Titanic." Even so, I don't think people are going to say "too bad it's not in 3D or I would've gone to see it."

Serious question: Has anyone been losing business because your showing was in 2D and not 3D? I honestly don't know the answer, so let's see what our findings are...

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-24-2012, 05:44 AM:

When there is local competition showing it in 3D - for sure.

Yes, we get the occasional email 'please show this in 2D not 3D, as I hate 3D'.

But these few people are not representative. Just as we cinema guys are not representative. The biggest money is made with younger people, and they usually consider 3D more entertaining, hip, whatever.

It certainly is a good idea to have 3D AND 2D screenings.

- Carsten

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-24-2012, 05:58 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's still doing anywhere from 35 to 60% of the grosses for 3D movies

Don't forget that the ONLY way to see a 3D movie in IMAX or the theatre chain knock off's is to see it in 3D. I've never seen a 2D option in those auditoriums. That skews the percentages.

If (in an alternate universe) all theatres had duplicate clone auditoiums and showed 2D and 3D versions at the same exact time and neither sold out, the 3D show would probably get maybe 20% of the audience. I know it is anecdotal but NOBODY that I know prefers to see movies in 3D. Except Avatar (which wasn't really a good movie and closing one eye half the time didn't make any real difference to the experience).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-24-2012, 05:59 AM:

I have a client that has seen their revenues go UP by NOT offering 3D. That is, their two nearest competitors have 3D and will offer 3D of the title while they only offer it in 2D...the net result was their revenues on that title are actually higher than their competitors and they can track it when a title is offered in 3D...they always get a boost now. People will drive further to not pay the premium and deal with the dislike of 3D.

While I think there will be titles where 3D can be a benefit...by and large, it is a distraction that costs money and compromises too many factors of the show.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-24-2012, 07:44 AM:

The glasses don't bother me, either. As Mike said, a lenticular system probably won't look as good as what we have now (however good that is). I suspect it might be like those 3-D pictures in childrens' books and postcards, with the ridged lenticular "lens" plastic over the image. The 3-D is there, but isn't quite the same.

The best quality 3-D is seen in a dedicated viewer, where each eye is directly shown its respective view, without any possibility of crosstalk, and where the viewing lenses can accurately provide the proper focal length. Of course, that's not practical in a theater setting, but every time a system goes farther away from that "perfect" method, the quality becomes compromised. Right now, I feel we have the best tradeoff. It is likely to improve, but I'm not holding my breath that this that next step.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2012, 11:25 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Has anyone been losing business because your showing was in 2D and not 3D?

When we played Lion King 3D, we had two nights of 2D shows. We had one whole family come in on one of those nights, and when they found out it was in 2D, they left. The kids were heartbroken. The dad (who made the decision) was being kind of stupid -- the kids would have loved seeing it on the big screen either way.

So -- not much, but it does happen.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-24-2012, 01:02 PM:

I still think it is different when we're talking about a novelty re-release like that (or, in my case, "Titanic").