Monster House 3D

[J. Baker]

Just saw Monster House, the 3D version, and it was awesome. They used a new technology by REAL D. It's different then the red/blue glasses that we all now of. The glasses lenses were clear. No color to them at all. The 3D depth stood out very well giving a very nice perception of depth.

Also, the glasses were not the paper kind. They were actual plastic made glasses that will last, using over and over. It did cost about two dollars more for the movie though, then usual. I'm sure which is to cover the cost of the glasses. No complaint there.

If anyone has seen Monster House or Chicken Little with REAL D's 3D technology, please post your thoughts. Also, if you know how this method is achieved, please post information about it. I'm searching the net now to see if I can find anything about this. As it doesn't look like they say how it's done from REAL D's site. It might require some expensive software or something. I really don't know.

[J. Baker]

Here's some information about this 3D technique being used. Doesn't look like this method is for the hobbiest. http://www.infocusmag.com/05october/3d.htm

[Bones3D]

This seems to be a modified version of some of the 3D effects tools produced in the last 10 years or so. Basically, it works by syncing a set of high-speed LCD goggles to on-screen images by temporary blocking each eye every other frame over fractions of a second.

The concept is not unlike how interlaced TV screens generate a seemingly complete image despite only drawing every other line alternately 30 times a second. (This is why a lot of animation programs offer a "render to fields" option.) The only difference in this case, is that each eye is blocked alternately during each pass, allowing images from two viewing angles to occupy the same space on-screen. It works by introducing tiny interruptions to our persistence of vision (or visual memory), the thing that allows our brains to interpret television/movies/animation as "moving" images rather than interpreting them as a choppy series of still images shown in rapid succession.

[heyvern]

The added benefit is also showing the film at 96fps...

I remember reading about "Trumbal Vision" years ago. In research they discovered the human brain can't differentiate beyond a certain FPS... like... 70.. or 90... or something. Beyond that it is wasted... films at that rate apparently looked "3D"... sort of... they were so "perfect" they had no motion blur. The action was captured so perfectly they looked real..

So it sounds like they sort of stick the 3D polorization "inside" each frame... with twice the frames per second... you get "more" 3D on each frame... uh... yeah...

Anywy... wicked cool.

-vern

[Bones3D]

Yeah, if I remember correctly, the refresh rate of the human eye maxes out at around 60fps. This is part of why IMAX films tend to seem so realistic. (The other reason is the immense scale of the screen, which exceeds the maximum viewing angle the human eye can see.)

In this case the film may play back at 96fps, but given the fact each eye is blocked every other frame, the observer sees something closer to 48fps, only from slightly different angles each other frame. Still, that's far more realistic to the eye than the typical 24fps used in standard film movies.

[myles]

Just a minor addition (for the benefit of lurking readers), assuming J.Baker didn't get a pair of battery powered googles.

To produce cheap non-powered goggles/glasses that will still show this effect rather than providing powered LCD lenses to each audience member, the current technology uses simple passive polarised lenses for the audience, and restricts the high-speed synched polarised lens to the projector itself.

Hold a set of polarised sunglasses up to the blue sky outside and rotate them as if tilting your head from side-to-side while wearing them - if you get the right direction you see the sky turn lighter and darker because of polarised light from the sky.

Similarly, by using different polarisation on each alternate projected frame, each succeeding image looks bright to one eye and dark (just about completely black if they've done it right) to the other eye when wearing correctly polarised lenses.

Otherwise, what Bones and Vern said.

From what J.Baker said, they've produced a nice clear polarised lens, which is a step up from the tinted polarised lenses they've used in IMAX theatres.

Unfortunately, because you can't polarise the light coming from your computer screen you can't reproduce the effect on your computer screen except by using the high-speed synched LCD goggles Bones mentioned.
About US$200-$300 a set last time I looked.
These don't involve polarisation, they simply turn each alternate lens black/opaque or clear many times per second, while your computer shows alternate eye/camera viewpoints in synchronisation.

Regards, Myles.