3DMedia News

Native 3D Movies vs. 2D Conversions

By Tassos Markas, President and CEO, 3DMedia

A significant number of 3D movies are scheduled for release in 2012 and beyond. Most of them are 2D-to-3D conversions where the film is shot in 2D and then converted to 3D during post-production. There has been a lot of discussion about whether converted films can provide the same experience as those shot in 3D from the beginning.

3D offers many new elements that can add to the storytelling and overall experience, provided it is created properly. The processes of shooting natively in 3D and converting from 2D both contain a lot of variables that affect the final results, so both methods can yield a range of 3D quality. However, as it stands today, I believe that 2D-to-3D converted content generally provides a lesser experience compared to native 3D. There are a lot of things missing in conversions, and although the typical audience may not be able to tell this immediately, I don't believe it will give them a lasting experience once they leave the movie theater. The question is not whether the audience can tell the difference, as many conversion stereographers emphasize. The question is whether the conversions offer an experience that will be deeply embedded in peoples' minds and will make them fully embrace this new means of communication and come back again and again. I do not believe that conversions can reach this level.

Hugo, 3D, and the 3D Skeptics

By Tassos Markas, President and CEO, 3DMedia

The 3D film Hugo has been another epic milestone for 3D in terms of the theatrical experience. However, this has not translated to high box office ticket sales to this point. Some skeptics of 3D consider this as further proof that 3D is nothing but a gimmick that will fade over time. Although the skeptics of 3D are still outnumbered by people that believe the opposite and will pay a premium to see 3D movies, I think it is important to address some of their comments.

3D is how humans see and experience visual content and is therefore hardly a gimmick. Was sound a gimmick when added to silent films? Was color a gimmick when added to black and white films? Was high-definition another gimmick? 3D is nothing but another natural transition that elevates user experience and will be here to stay.

Regarding Hugo, it is an exceptional 3D movie if not the best released so far. I attribute the low initial sales to the following causes: it was not well advertised, it was not a story that was well known by the public, and it falls in a strange demographic segment where it is a little too serious for kids and not quite serious enough for adults. Nevertheless, it is a very good story and an excellent 3D production. There have been many excellent films that have not made the top rankings at the box office.

I cannot think of anything that can stop the transition to 3D. Within several years, all content will be 3D, and all display devices from very large to small screens for phones will be 3D. Consider that several years back everyone was wondering why there is a need to have LCD displays instead of dot-matrix displays on cellphones. Today nobody makes cellphones with dot-matrix technology, and the resolutions even for the smallest screens continue to increase at a rapid pace. Not long ago everyone was wondering what was the purpose for HD video in cellphones. Now pretty much every smartphone has the ability to capture HD video. The question is not whether 3D will completely take over 2D but whether it will happen within a 5 or a 10 year time frame.

3D Photography Using Olympus 3D-enabled Cameras

Since the beginning of 2011, Olympus Imaging has introduced a number of 3D-enabled cameras that use 3DMedia’s ViewFusion technology. This document provides information to help advanced users of Olympus 3D-enabled cameras to create better and more immersive 3D photos to enjoy for generations to come.

3D Camera Overview

Olympus 3D-enabled cameras are standard, single-lens cameras with special software that allows users to create 3D content. These models include Olympus SZ-10, SZ-20, SZ-30, and TG-310. To capture 3D images, users need to take two pictures by moving the camera to different positions between shots, thereby creating the same effect as a dual-lens camera. The process is rather simple. With automatic 3D mode, the user takes the first picture and then moves the camera to the right in a lateral manner. When the camera is at the right distance, the second picture is taken automatically. After the two pictures have been taken, software running on the camera creates a 3D image that can be displayed on a 3D-enabled HDTV using the provided HDMI connector, or can be downloaded and enjoyed on any 3D-enabled PC or laptop. In addition to the automatic mode, Olympus 3D camera models offer a manual mode that provides the user with more flexibility when creating 3D content.

One limitation of dual lens/sensor cameras is that they have fixed stereo baselines and fixed lens orientations (parallel, converged, diverged). The fixed configuration limits their ability to capture close objects and/or very distant objects. In the latter case, after a certain distance all objects look flat, the same way we lose our perception of depth when viewing a scene with our eyes. This may not be obvious, since the human brain can extrapolate depth using different cues the same way we can perceive depth even in 2D photography. Olympus 3D-enabled cameras can vary the stereo baseline, and therefore are not subject to such limitations. Olympus cameras have the ability to analyze the scene and provide guidance on how far apart to take the two pictures. In all models available today, this process is done automatically. In this case, after a user takes the first picture and starts sliding the camera to the right, it automatically takes the second shot when it reaches the correct distance.

One drawback of using 3D-enabled or standard cameras to capture 3D pictures is that since the two pictures are taken at different times, there may be movement of objects in the scene. Tools or technologies that compensate for object movement between shots are needed to create the best experience in creating 3D content with single-lens cameras.

3D Photography Techniques

3D photography is an exciting way to capture content. It presents some new challenges, but it also allows users to create pictures that are more visually exciting and immersive, thus enhancing the experience. Shooting in 3D is different in some ways compared to traditional 2D shooting. The main reason is that in 3D, a new dimension needs to be captured and framed appropriately. Although many aspects of traditional 2D photography also relate to 3D, some techniques that apply to 2D photography may not be appropriate for shooting in 3D. In this section, we describe general shooting methods that result in the optimal 3D experience for Olympus 3D cameras.

One important aspect of 3D photography is the distance between the two images, known as the "stereo baseline". The stereo baseline plays a very important role in 3D photography since it determines the depth of the scene. The stereo baseline of human eyes, also called the binocular distance, is typically 5-6cm. Humans also have the ability to angle their eyes so they converge or diverge. In a stereo camera, the camera position is generally fixed, meaning that the baseline is fixed as well. However, shooting objects at close distances requires a relatively small stereo baseline (even less than 0.5cm in some instances) or a converged configuration, and when shooting distant objects, using a much wider stereo baseline (even much larger than the binocular distance in some cases) or a diverged configuration often yields the best 3D results.

When advanced users photograph objects at far distances (for example, scenes with the nearest objects more than 10m away), it is recommended that they use the manual mode to further increase the stereo baseline, thus generating a more pronounced depth in the resulting 3D photograph. When performing this technique, users need to slide the camera laterally, past where the overlaid first picture would indicate, then press the shutter button manually when they reach the desired distance. Guidelines for determining the optimal distance are provided in the following paragraph.

Although the choice of stereo baseline depends on many factors such as focal length, aperture, etc., a rough guideline is between 1/30 to 1/60 of the distance to the closest object in the field of view. For example, if the closest object is 3m away, a stereo baseline in the range of 5-10cm would be suitable, depending on the total depth of the scene and other factors. Though oversimplified, this is a good starting point for experimenting with 3D photography. Note also that the closest object is often the ground, and if so, this should be used as the reference to calculate the stereo baseline.

It is very important to understand that different people have different preferences and sensitivity to the depth of 3D content. Some prefer more depth, but for others even smaller amounts of depth may be uncomfortable. Therefore, it is recommended that each user experiments with stereo baseline selection to determine his or her preference.

When using 3D-enabled or standard cameras, one must also consider the direction and angle to move the camera before taking the second picture. For the best 3D effect for the overall picture, it is recommended to move only laterally either to the left or right, avoiding any toe-in towards the main subject or toe-out away from the main subject. In other words, it is preferred to take both pictures with the same lens angle rather than re-centering the subject for the second shot.

3D photographers need to account for a new element that does not exist in standard 2D photography. This is the third dimension, or depth of the picture. Good depth composition is very important to create a realistic, immersive, and exciting 3D photograph of a scene. Traditional 2D shooting techniques may not necessarily produce the desired effects in 3D photography. When composing a 2D photo, the photographer makes sure that various subjects/objects are well balanced within the two-dimensional space. In 3D photography, the same principle should be applied to the third dimension. Taking a 3D photo of a flat surface or a scene where the subject is at a great distance and the background is at a focal distance of infinity (e.g., sky) does not typically produce an excellent 3D effect. For a good 3D photo there should be a depth continuum. This can be achieved using various compositions. The ground can be a useful element, as the ground spanning from the bottom of the field of view in the photo to some distance can provide a sense of depth continuity. One simple 3D compositional technique is to have multiple subjects at different depths. Another effective technique is to arrange objects so they are placed across the third dimension. For example, when taking a photo of a large object, placing the width of the object across the third dimension can help create a sense of depth.

Large breaks in the depth continuum can produce the undesirable “cardboarding” effect. This makes pictures look like flat objects (cardboard figures) placed at different depths in the scene. This is more likely to occur when the volume of the objects in the scene is small compared to the total depth of the scene. In this case only a few levels of depth are visible, and the transitions between levels appear to be discontinuous and unrealistic. Since the goal of stereo photography is to reproduce the feeling of being at a scene, stereo photography is also generally not conducive to low-light conditions that would limit that perception (and again, be more likely to add noise).

Another advanced aspect of 3D photography is aligning the main subject within the picture. The photographer must account for the fact that the camera will slide between pictures. For example, in 2D photography the main subject is often centered in the photo. If a centered subject is desired in a 3D photo, the main subject should be positioned slightly to the right of center in the first shot, such that the subject will be slightly to the left of center in the second shot. If this technique is not followed, photographers will have to resort to cropping after producing the initial 3D picture.

Another non-intuitive aspect of 3D photography is the selection of focal lengths. It is better to use smaller focal lengths when possible. Our preference is to shoot at 28 and 35mm. Longer focal lengths result in a smaller field of view and therefore less total depth in the scene. Longer focal lengths also tend to create more cardboarding effects since there is already compression of the scene and therefore less depth continuum. Shorter focal lengths typically capture a larger field, which should usually have more depth. However, when shooting at shorter focal lengths, one should be careful to check whether objects on the edges of the field of view are in fact the closest objects, as this requires the stereo baseline to be adjusted accordingly. It should be noted that not all cameras allow users to choose focal lengths when shooting in 3D mode.

Conclusion

3D cinematographers use the perceived depth (i.e., depth budget) of a scene as a storytelling device. This is because different emotions can be created by playing with perceived depth parameters and the time those parameters are applied in a sequence. The same is true for still photography, and to a certain extent the most appropriate depth of a scene depends not only on user preferences but also the context of the scene. When properly done, 3D photography naturally provides a better viewer experience. However, it is also possible to create boring or exhilarating 3D content the same way that it can be created in 2D. Manipulation of depth and other 3D parameters provide additional artistic elements to photography. Photographers from novice to professional should consider 3D as a new opportunity for expression that can touch the viewer in a more emotional way.

Olympus 3D-enabled cameras provide a new way to create and enjoy personal content. Their technology allows users at all skill levels to easily create immersive and realistic 3D photos. Go ahead - try them! They are great products that will allow you to experience photography in a whole new way.

How to View 3D Photos on Your 3D TV

By Jason Hurst, General Manager of PC Products, 3DMedia

If you purchased a 3D TV, you’re probably eager to watch as much 3D content as possible. When people think of watching 3D TV, they usually envision 3D videos, either in the form of Hollywood movies or broadcast content. However, in recent years, many people have also enjoyed looking at their photographs on their TVs, and 3D photos on 3D TVs are even more compelling. Why not view 3D photos on your biggest screen, where they can be most immersive? Here are some ways you can create a setup to do this.

The latest Panasonic and LG 3D TV models have a 3D photo viewer application built in, which makes the process of viewing 3D photos very easy. Just copy the 3D picture files onto a USB drive (Panasonic also supports SD card) and insert it into the corresponding TV interface. The TV should recognize the content and start the photo viewer. The most recent Panasonic 3D TV models are from the Viera series, all of which should include a 3D photo viewer. LG started including a 3D viewer with its Infinia series (now discontinued), and all its currently available 3D TVs should include a 3D photo viewer.

If you own another type of 3D TV, you’ll need an external device to send the 3D photo files to your TV via an HDMI connection. Several such devices are available.

• The Sony PlayStation 3 can show 3D pictures on 3D TVs using its PlayMemories application. You can get 3D image files into your PlayStation by connecting a USB drive (or flash card on some models), copying them from a drive on your local network, or downloading them from the internet using the unit’s built-in web browser.
• The latest series of Panasonic 3D Blu-ray players (“DMP-BDT” models) can play back 3D photos stored on USB drives, SD cards, or optical media (CDs, DVDs, or Blu-ray discs).
• PCs that include HDMI outputs can drive 3D content onto 3D TVs, if 3D photo viewer software is available that supports side-by-side output.
• Several 3D camera models include HDMI interfaces that can send 3D pictures from the camera directly to a 3D TV. Olympus has several single-lens 3D camera models that include this feature, such as the TG-610 and TG-310. Several of Sony’s “Sweep Panorama” 3D cameras offer this feature, as does its dual-lens Bloggie 3D camera.

As support for 3D content continues to increase, other devices that connect to TVs and can play back 3D photos will likely be arriving soon.

Most hardware devices that work with 3D photos, including all of the above, support only the MPO (Multi-Picture Object) format. So your 3D pictures should be in this format (the files should be named filename.MPO). You can find 3D photos in MPO format on the web, or create your own using a 3D camera or a regular 2D camera and 3D photo creation software.

Don’t let your big screen go to waste waiting for new 3D releases from the major studios. You can easily create, find, and view 3D photos that look great in your living room.

3D at Home Market Analysis: Status and Future

By Tassos Markas, President and CEO, 3DMedia

What is driving 3D this time around? What are the market trends and how can 3D be reinforced as the technology of choice for consumers to capture, create, and share content? This article provides insight into the market trends and discusses the conditions and requirements that will make 3D the default method of enjoying entertainment and personal content.

HDTV Manufacturers

Although the HDTV market has experienced significant growth in the past ten years, sales are leveling off due to high HDTV ownership in households. Newer capabilities such as brighter panels and higher refresh rates are not disruptive enough to entice consumers to rapidly replace their existing TVs with new ones. Web connectivity is definitely a driving force, but it is not sufficiently disruptive since consumer desire to move from broadcast to on-demand content can be also accomplished using PCs or boxes connected to their TVs. For what is available today and what is forecast to appear technologically in the near future, 3D is the most viable technology at good price points that offers a new experience and can drive consumer desire to replace their existing sets. HDTV manufacturers have realized this and have been investing heavily to make better and cheaper 3D HDTVs. Several consumer electronics executives have made comments attesting that by the end of next year more than 3/4 of new TVs sold will be 3D capable.

Digital Cameras and Camcorders

The camera market is even more saturated compared to the HDTV market since the vast majority of consumers now own a digital camera or camera phone. This market is even more desperate to offer something new so consumers can start replacing their existing cameras. There is no technology on the horizon that can make this happen besides 3D. Manufacturers of image and video capture products (e.g., cameras, camcorders, and cellphones) need to deliver high-quality transitional products that will allow consumers to capture both in 3D and standard 2D modes since the transition from 2D to 3D will not happen overnight. This means that such devices need to deliver exceptional quality 3D photos and 3D video without compromising their 2D quality.

Movie Theaters and Hollywood

The availability of large, high-quality HDTV panels, combined with easily accessible online content, allows consumers to enjoy movies at home and provides little motivation for them to keep coming to the theaters. Movie theater operators need to offer something new to sustain their business. 3D provides such a new experience. The very large screens, available only in theaters, provide a higher degree of immersion which enhances the 3D viewing experience and creates a strong motivating factor for consumers to return. Hollywood has also seen the value of 3D and has been releasing 3D titles at a rapid pace. However, this has not been done without some controversy. This rush to release as much 3D content as possible has compromised the consumer 3D experience to a certain degree, as studios have used sub-optimal 3D shooting techniques and lower quality technologies such as 2D-to-3D conversion to get movies in 3D format fast and at low cost. Although the quality of 3D movies has been mediocre in quite a few cases, the public has generally embraced the technology, and as a result ticket sales for 3D showings more than doubled to over $6 billion in 2010 compared to the year before. Movie theater operators are also converting their screens to digital formats suitable for 3D, and thousands more 3D-capable theaters will be added this year in the US alone.

3D at Home

Although there is overwhelming evidence that 3D is here to stay as a means to create a new experience in theaters, will it reach homes, and when? Market appeal for any new consumer product can be achieved if an optimal ratio of perceived value over cost can be reached. So, where does 3D TV stand here?

According to various reports, 3D HDTV owners are very satisfied with their purchases and the experience that 3D delivers to their homes. Although there is some initial hesitation by particular consumers to purchase 3D TVs due to the nature of the glasses and possibility of eye fatigue, those problems will soon be resolved and 3D TVs will ultimately win the hearts of consumers. There is also another overwhelming reason that can attest to this: we see things in three dimensions, so it is only natural that we will have the same expectation for our display devices. For those reasons, 3D offers a significant value over what we have today. But when will the price be ready? The good news is that the additional costs for manufacturing 3D HDTVs are small, and because of this, prices have been dropping rapidly to the point that 3D will be a standard feature in all new HDTVs sold very soon. I believe that the value vs. price ratio is very ripe at this point and 3D is ready to take off.

3D Adoption

Based on the current status of the 3D market and what has occurred in previous technology adoption cycles, I expect there will be three phases in consumer readiness to consume 3D content at home.

The first phase that covers this and next year will be the 3D hibernation phase. During this phase, a large number of consumers will own 3D HDTV sets because it will come as a standard feature with the sets they bought. 3D TV owners will be occasional viewers of 3D content for special occasions and events.

With increased 3D content availability from both broadcasters and studios, 3D awareness will continue to increase, and in the second phase consumers will start demanding, being willing to pay for, and consuming more 3D content. The availability of 3D passive glass technology will also ease some of the eye strain associated with shutter glasses, and its convenience and cost will create a more appealing viewing experience for consumers.

In the final, full adoption phase, consumers will want to create and consume their own personal 3D content. This means that capture devices, whether they are in the form of 3D cameras or 3D cellphones, need to be able to deliver the right quality at the right price points.

This is a typical technology adoption process, and as such, requires some time for 3D to reach mass adoption status. However, given that 3D TVs with either active or passive glasses will be commonly available to display 3D content, there are two things that can be done to expedite wide proliferation of 3D in the marketplace:

• Studios and broadcasters need to create better 3D content. Quality and consumer experience should supersede quantity. Although this may delay wide adoption of 3D in the short term, it is better to deliver excellent quality instead of risking losing viewers. It will take a very long time to bring dissatisfied consumers back to 3D.
• High quality, versatile, transitional capture devices (e.g., 3D cameras, 3D camcorders, and 3D cellphones that can also do 2D very well) need to come into the market soon to fill the gap of 3D content availability. Giving consumers the ability to create their own 3D content allows them to make a personal connection with the 3D technology by capturing and enjoying their own moments and life in 3D. This removes barriers to consumers investing more in 3D technologies, whether they are more expensive 3D HDTV sets, 3D cameras and cellphones, or 3D content.

There is no question that 3D will succeed this time around. The only question is how fast. For this to happen quickly, it is paramount that all contributors in this space, whether we are consumer electronics manufacturers, content creators, or technology providers, need to produce and offer high quality 3D products to consumers.

3D Movie Theater Technology

Though the technologies behind movie storage and playback have evolved over the years, film and projectors have been used for a long time, so their basic concepts are understood by most movie-goers. With the adoption of digital technology, and now with the increasing popularity of 3D, the landscape of cinema technology has become more complicated. Though many people have been to theaters to watch 3D movies, fewer understand the platforms used to show them. Below are the most popular methods used to present stereoscopic 3D movies in theaters.

• Active shutter system: The projector displays the left and right eye images, and the viewer wears active shutter glasses that are synchronized with the projector. This is the same concept used by most 3D TVs and PCs. An example of such a system is the XPAND 3D Cinema System. It has been adopted by more than 3,500 cinemas worldwide, however, the majority are in Europe. The drawbacks are the relatively high cost of glasses and the fact that the glasses must be cleaned for re-use.
• Digital passive polarizing system: The projector presents circular-polarized left and right images, and the viewer wears passive polarized glasses. A silver screen is required. This system was introduced by RealD and is used in most theaters in the US. The glasses are relatively cheap and therefore considered disposable.
• Film-based passive polarizing system: In this system, both right and left views are printed on film in a way that both views fit into a single frame. A single projector with a special polarizing lens separates the left and right images, similar to the digital passive polarizing system above. This system was introduced by Technicolor and mainly targeted at small and independent theaters with no digital equipment. More than 350 theaters in the US use this method.
• Passive wavelength system: This system uses primary colors of slightly different shades to construct the left and right images. The glasses use advanced wavelength filters to allow only the correct image to pass through to each eye. Since each eye receives a full set of primary colors, the viewer sees a full spectrum of colors. This system was introduced to the market by Dolby with technology licensed from Infitec. The content must be processed in advance, but a silver screen is not required as it is in a RealD system.
• IMAX large format system: The IMAX system uses dual projectors with a fixed polarized filter on each lens. The audiences wear reusable plastic glasses with linear polarization. There are a relatively small number of IMAX theaters (just over 500), with some in the process of converting to digital.

Given all these choices, what theater should you chose for watching 3D movies? All are valid approaches that can potentially provide an excellent experience. Digital theaters equipped with RealD systems have the advantage that the glasses are light and fairly comfortable, and they allow more light through them. RealD has also enhanced their system to reduce or eliminate ghosting, which improves the 3D experience. If you can find an IMAX theater, the immersion provided by a 3D movie on the extra large screen is hard to beat.

3D TV Technologies: Status and Future Predictions

By Tassos Markas, President and CEO, 3DMedia

So what is going on with 3D TVs? Should you buy one now or wait? What should you consider before making this decision? Here is a summary of the status of 3D TVs today with some of my personal thoughts on the direction of this market that I hope can make your decision easier.

3D TVs and 3D technology in general has been in the news regularly since the release of Avatar in 2009. HDTV manufacturers are including 3D capability in most of their high-end products and most HDTV models will be 3D capable this year. This trend is expected to continue, and in a few years most HDTV models will be 3D capable. Currently there are three different 3D technologies promoted by various HDTV manufacturers. The first one is the active glass technology that is offered by almost all manufacturers at this point, the passive glass technology that is heavily promoted by LG Display Division, and the autostereoscopic technology that has been introduced and promoted by Toshiba this year.

Active-Glass Technology

Up to this point, active glass technology has been dominant due to its good 3D image quality and very low manufacturing costs. To implement this system, HDTV manufacturers need a minimum of 120Hz panel to show images at 60Hz to each eye, and an infrared transmitter to communicate with the glasses which frame is targeted for which eye. It should be noted that HDTVs with higher refresh rates have the added benefit of delivering better 3D quality by minimizing ghosting between the left and right eyes. Most high-end HDTVs are already capable of 120Hz refresh rates, so there is not much additional manufacturing cost to make an HDTV 3D-capable. Almost all extra costs of this technology are in the glasses. Active 3D glasses use shutter glass material which prevents or allows light to reach each eye based on signals received from the TV's infrared transmitter. This makes 3D more like a feature that can be added to HDTVs, rather than a new TV product category.

Although active glass technology delivers good 3D image quality, there are some drawbacks, and all of them are related to the glasses themselves. Active glasses are not lightweight, they are expensive, they need periodic charging or new batteries, and a significant amount of the incoming light is lost when wearing them. The latter issue does not make them convenient to use, and consumers prefer removing them when doing something besides watching 3D TV. Another element that has been seriously overlooked by manufacturers is the actual design of the glasses. Most of them have a "goofy" look which makes some consumers uncomfortable wearing them.

Passive-Glass Technology

Another promising 3D technology uses simple polarizing glasses to provide separate views to the left and right eye. Using passive glass technology, the implementation cost moves from the glasses to the TV itself. Passive 3D glasses are lightweight, and they can have the same look and feel as regular reading glasses. In addition, they do not block as much light as active glasses, therefore they enable users to read and naturally perform other functions. The only drawback of the passive glass technology is that they currently require a loss in HDTV resolution by a factor of two. Since half the pixels are assigned to one eye and the other half to the other eye, typically each eye sees a 960 x 1080 resolution instead of the full 1920 x 1080 provided in 2D mode. This is not very bad for viewing most 3D content, especially when dealing with video, but for high-quality still pictures with a lot of detail, it can be noticed. However, manufacturers supporting this technology are looking into solutions to address this loss of resolution, and it is expected that there will be a solution soon.

Glasses-Free Technology

Autostereoscopic TVs have the advantage of not needing any glasses, but currently they are very expensive and up to this point they have not produced acceptable 3D image quality. I believe that adoption of glasses-free 3D TV will take time, and will not reach the mass markets until 4K HDTV panels become affordable for consumers. This technology will need to support viewing from different angles of multiple viewers, and this requires multi-view technology that can only be delivered using higher resolution panels to avoid a very noticeable reduction in picture quality.

Projections and Summary

Since manufacturing costs of HDTVs supporting active or passive 3D glasses are low, we project that within a few years all HDTVs will be 3D capable. The good news for consumers is that prices will continue to fall and they will be able to get 3D TVs at very reasonable prices.

In summary, I believe that active glass technology has been the enabling technology for 3D, but it will not be able to win the hearts of consumers unless the price continues to fall, and the design problems have been addressed. The passive glass technology has a higher potential of reaching mass market adoption in the upcoming years. Autostereoscopic technology will take several years to mature, and it will also require 4K panels to reach consumer level prices, which is not something I see happening in the near future.

Purchasing the right 3D TV is a matter of personal preference. If you are comfortable with active glasses, this technology offers good quality and allows you to experience 3D content in its full potential. For those not comfortable with the price or design of active glasses, they should wait until they find the right balance between price and design, or they can choose the passive glass technology instead. Autostereoscopic technology will take more time to reach consumer level price points.

History of Stereoscopic 3D

Stereoscopic 3D has a long history, probably dating back to Greek mathematician Euclid, who discovered how humans achieve depth perception. Significant developments were made by Sir Charles Wheatstone in the early 1800s, and since then stereo has been used for still images and video.

Stereoscopic 3D has been the subject of many revolutions. Most notably, it had a brief renaissance in the early 1950s when the movie industry was looking for something new to combat the introduction of TVs into peoples’ homes. They produced a large number of 3D films using improved capture, processing and presentation equipment. Unfortunately, this revolution did not last long due to high costs and problems in the entire chain of production including capture, post-production, and presentation. The technology was simply not ready at that time.

Although the movie industry attempted to revive stereoscopic 3D a few times after the eventual failure in the 1950s, it was not seen as “the next big thing” until 2005 with the release of Chicken Little by Disney using the RealD system. Disney made a lot of money from the 3D release as compared to the 2D release, even though only a few theaters were equipped with the digital RealD polarized system. This success revived the interest of the movie industry, which was looking to increase the number of moviegoers and, again, to counteract the fact that consumers were purchasing new HDTVs, which were becoming cheaper and of higher quality. Since then, most animated movies have been produced in 3D, as well as a large number of live action movies.

Today everyone is talking about stereoscopic 3D and wondering about its future. What does the future hold? It seems that 3D movies are here to stay, because the movie industry is behind them and digital technology is available to make them cost-effective. The conditions have never been better for 3D technologies to gain mainstream acceptance.

3D Photography: Technology and Techniques

Making the Transition to 3D Photography

3D photography provides a new level of experience for professional photographers as well as consumers. The technologies needed to enable 3D photography are available today, and consumers are purchasing 3D products at a rapid pace. Within this decade, the majority of mid- and large-sized displays will be able to display 3D content, and this trend will continue for smaller displays as well. Eventually most displays of all sizes will be 3D capable. There are several reasons that make this very likely.

First, all the technological hurdles related to making high-quality 3D display systems and 3D production cameras have either been solved or there is a clear path to a solution. But more importantly, 3D will be the dominant technology in the future for a very simple reason: because humans see in 3D, and it is natural for us to invent and develop technologies that come as close as possible to the way we live, experience, and see things. 3D is simply the next transition in the presentation of visual content. It is similar to the transitions we made when moving from black and white to color, then to digital formats, and finally to high-definition.

3D Display Technology

Displaying content in three dimensions is accomplished by presenting a different image to each eye. There are three basic technologies that can achieve this:

The first one is shutter glass technology, also known as “active” glasses. Most current 3D TVs and PCs utilize this technology, which relies on the use of high-speed displays that send alternating images to each eye. A synchronization mechanism that communicates between the TV and the glasses determines which image each eye sees. Because of synchronization and communication requirements, there are electronics inside the active glasses that control the shutters which determine whether each eye sees the projected image or not. This makes them heavier and more expensive compared to regular reading glasses. This technology is fairly mature and there is no expectation of any substantial improvements in the near future.

The second technology is polarized glasses, also known as “passive” glasses. This technology has the advantage that the glasses are light weight and much less expensive compared to active glasses. They are also easy to wear even if you aren’t using them to see 3D. In current passive glass systems, there is some loss of display resolution, but manufacturers will have a solution for this in the near future.

Finally, the “holy grail” of 3D viewing is of course the glasses-free technology of auto-stereoscopic displays. It will still take years to develop this technology to a point of acceptable quality, so it will most likely emerge around the same time as even higher-resolution “4K” HDTV systems. In spite of the challenges this technology has to overcome, there is steady progress and we will have high-quality, cost-effective, auto-stereoscopic display panels within this decade.

One important issue is that no matter which technology eventually prevails, current systems will not become obsolete. The consumer electronics community and the standards organizations have standardized the transmission and distribution of 3D content, which will allow consumers to use the 3D TV sets they purchased even when new TVs move to a different technology. For this reason, consumers should make their 3D TV investments when the quality, personal comfort, and price point are satisfactory to them and should not wait until a specific technology comes to the market.

The Lack of 3D Content and How to Fill the Void

One of the biggest obstacles delaying the proliferation of consumer 3D displays is the lack of 3D content. Although new movies continue to be produced in 3D and there are a few channels that broadcast 3D, the availability of 3D content is still limited. Despite widespread knowledge within the consumer electronics community of this shortage, many manufacturers have ignored what is likely the quickest way to solve the problem. At this point, the best way to address the problem is to have consumers to create their own 3D content. This will provide them a sense of personal connection with the 3D technology and will greatly assist in its proliferation via content sharing through social networking and other means. The easiest way for consumers to create 3D content is to start with still photography.

Although videos can potentially provide a more immersive experience than photos, shooting video in 3D is a much more difficult task for consumers since it requires more expensive equipment and more training in order to be done right. In addition, most consumers take more photos than videos, and when dealing with quality and experience, photos provide a much better experience compared to videos, which are primarily used to capture events, with less emphasis on image quality. Therefore, creating 3D photos is a more satisfying experience for most consumers.

So why should consumers start with 3D photography now, even though the technology for 3D displays will most likely be changing? The reason is rather simple. No matter what the ultimate technology of 3D displays will be, the format of 3D photos will be the same, since popular, standardized formats for 3D photos already exist. For consumers that already have 3D TVs, this is a great opportunity to fill the 3D content creation gap that exists today. They can create their own personal content using one of the 3D cameras that are available in the market, or they can use their existing cameras to take two pictures side-by-side for use with good quality 3D creation software. For those that do not own a 3D TV, there is also no reason to wait. Why lose all this time and opportunity to capture your life in 3D? The transition to 3D is happening - it is just a matter of time. There is no better time to start than now.

In addition, 3D photography is the more natural medium for experiencing 3D. The reason is that when one views a photograph, his/her eyes move around the picture over a period of time and can take in the range of depth in different areas. For many forms of video, the need to “tell a story” by focusing only on the main subject and blurring the background, as well as the need for high speed action, negate many of the advantages of 3D. Viewing 3D still pictures offers a higher degree of immersion, and often results in less eye fatigue compared to viewing 3D video. This makes for a better initial consumer experience, and can drive demand.

3D Camera Technology

The basic principle of 3D viewing is to produce two views, each taken from a different position, and then present each view to the respective eye. The brain fuses together the separate views to produce a singular understanding of the scene which includes the perception of depth.

There are a number of different camera systems that can capture images suitable for 3D viewing, though they vary significantly in terms of technology and cost. In the professional market, a number of studios have created high-quality 3D camera systems that have been used to produce outstanding 3D movies that many consumers have seen and enjoyed.

For consumer-level photography, there are currently two different methods used to capture 3D content. One is to create 3D using pictures taken of the same object from different locations (i.e., two-picture method), the same way the human visual system works. The second is a synthetic process where the two views are created using a two-dimensional representation of scene and a depth map of the scene (i.e., single-picture plus depth method). There are several ways to extract the depth of a scene that vary in terms of complexity and accuracy. The problem with this approach is that it is very difficult to construct an accurate depth map, and it is also impossible to accurately reconstruct the pixels that should be occluded in the captured view and disoccluded in the generated view. For these reasons, the two-picture approach yields the highest quality, and we believe that this will be in case for the foreseeable future.

Creation of high-quality 3D content using the two-picture concept can be accomplished using either a dual lens/sensor system to capture a scene simultaneously from two different positions, or using a “standard” (i.e., single-lens) camera. With a single-lens camera it is necessary to take two images by moving the camera to different positions between shots, thereby creating the same effect as a dual-lens camera.

Dual-sensor cameras use two identical lens/sensors that are placed on the camera body at a fixed distance and take simultaneous pictures of the same scene but from two different views. The human visual system is constructed in a similar manner. Fujifilm has been producing dual-sensor cameras for over one year. Sony has also recently introduced their Bloggie 3D video camcorder with two sensors. HTC, Sharp, and LG have already released or soon plan to release dual-sensor cell phones. Dual-lens systems are a variation of this approach that utilizes the same image sensor but two different lenses. The two lenses capture a scene from two slightly different views and direct the light to different parts of the image sensor. Panasonic released an interchangeable stereo lens for their micro 4/3 camera line using this approach.

“3D-enabled” cameras are another class of cameras that utilize the two-picture method to create 3D by taking two pictures side-by-side. These are standard-body, single-lens cameras with no hardware modifications, but they include software that assists users when capturing two images side-by-side. As we will discuss later, one important aspect of 3D photography is the distance between the two pictures. 3D-enabled cameras can assist users in calculating the proper distance for the two pictures, and provide another way to create 3D photos. Olympus has released several models since the beginning of 2011. Actually, any conventional digital camera can be used to capture two pictures for creating 3D images. In this case, the user must estimate how far apart the two pictures need to be taken. One drawback of using 3D-enabled and standard cameras is that since the two pictures are taken at different times, there may be movement of objects in the scene. Tools or technologies that compensate for object movement between shots need to be supplied to create the ultimate experience in creating 3D content with single-lens cameras.

Other 3D camera technologies include Sony's Sweep Panorama, where 3D is created using a clip taken from a panoramic video. Sony has also released a different model that creates 3D by taking two pictures of the same scene at different focus distances.

3D Photography Techniques

3D photography represents an exciting way to capture content. It presents some new challenges, but it also opens the door to create something that is more visually exciting and immersive that can enhance the human experience. Shooting in 3D is different in some ways compared to traditional 2D shooting. The main reason is that in 3D, photographers have a new dimension that needs to be captured and framed appropriately. Although many aspects of traditional 2D photography also relate to 3D, in some instances techniques applied to 2D photography may not be appropriate for shooting in 3D.

In this section, we describe general shooting methods that result in the optimal 3D experience without limitations. It should be noted that certain camera equipment may not allow users the flexibility to apply some of the described techniques and recommendations.

One important aspect of 3D photography is the distance between the two images, referred to as the "stereo baseline". The human stereo baseline, also called the binocular distance, is typically 5-6cm. Humans also have the ability to converge or diverge their eyes. In a stereo camera, the camera position is generally fixed, meaning that the baseline is fixed as well. The stereo baseline plays a very important role in 3D photography since it determines the depth of the scene. Shooting objects at close distances requires a very small stereo baseline (even less than 0.5cm in some instances) or a converged configuration, whereas shooting content of far objects requires a much higher stereo baseline (even much larger than the binocular distance in some instances) or a diverged configuration. Dual lens/sensor cameras have fixed stereo baselines and fixed configurations (parallel, converged, diverged); the fixed configuration therefore limits their ability to capture close objects and very distant objects. In the latter case, after a certain distance all objects look flat, the same way we lose our perception of depth when viewing a scene with our eyes. This may not be obvious, since the human brain can extrapolate depth using different cues the same way we can perceive depth even in 2D photography.

3D-enabled cameras can vary the stereo baseline, and therefore are not subject to such limitations. 3D-enabled cameras typically have the ability to analyze the scene, detect the closest objects and provide some guidance on how far apart to take the two pictures. In some models, this process is done automatically. In this case, after a user takes the first picture and starts sliding the camera to the right, it automatically takes the second shot when it reaches the correct distance. Although the proper stereo baseline depends on many factors such as aperture, focal length, etc., a very rough guideline is between 1/30 to 1/60 of the distance to the closest object seen in the field of view. For example, if the closest object is 3m away, the proper stereo baseline should be in a range of 5-10cm, depending on individual tolerances, the total depth of the scene, and other factors. Although this is oversimplified, it is a good starting point for experimenting with 3D photography. It should be also noted that the closest object is frequently the ground, and if so, this is what should be used as a reference to calculate the stereo baseline.

It is very important to understand that different people have different preferences and sensitivity to 3D content. Some prefer more depth, but for others even a small amount of depth may not be comfortable. Therefore, it is recommended that each user experiments to determine his or her preference. If they have a fixed dual-sensor camera, they should avoid close objects. If they have a 3D-enabled camera, and its settings are not appropriate, they can switch the camera out of its automatic 3D mode to take the two pictures at their desired distance. Finally, if they have a standard camera, they can use the metric outlined earlier with some experimentation to find out the correct settings for them.

In the case of 3D-enabled or standard cameras, one must also consider the direction and angle to move the camera before taking the second picture. For the best 3D effect for the overall image, it is recommended to make a lateral movement to either the left or right and to avoid any toe-in towards the main subject or toe-out away from the main subject. In other words, it is preferred to take both pictures with the same lens angle rather than re-centering the subject for the second shot. Photographers using dual-sensor cameras do not need to worry about this, since both pictures are taken at fixed locations at the same time.

In the case of standard cameras, it is important to maintain the same settings (e.g., focus, exposure, and white-balance) for both pictures. This can be accomplished by keeping the shutter button pressed half way down after the first picture has been taken, prior to any camera movement. Once the settings have been locked this way, then you can move the camera to the desired position to take the second shot by doing a full press.

Shooting in 3D is different because the photographer needs to account for a new element that does not exist in standard 2D photography. This is the third dimension, or the depth of the picture. Traditional 2D shooting techniques may not necessarily produce the desired effects in 3D photography. In 3D photography, the photographer needs to think how objects and scenes align in depth. Proper depth composition is very important to create a composition that results in a realistic, immersive, and exciting 3D representation of the scene. When composing a 2D photo, the photographer makes sure that various subjects/objects are well balanced within the two-dimensional space. Now the same principle needs to be applied to 3D photography to account for the third dimension. Taking a 3D photo of a flat surface or taking a photo where there is an object at some distance and the background at a focal distance of infinity (e.g., sky) does not typically produce the desired 3D effect. For a good 3D photo there must be a depth continuum. Depth continuum can be created using various compositions. One can be the ground, as the ground that is spanning from the bottom of the field of view in the photo to some distance can provide a sense of depth continuity. Another appropriate technique is to arrange objects so they are placed across the third dimension. For example, instead of taking a photo in front of an object, for example a car, it is preferred to take a picture of the car at an angle so the length of the car is across the third dimension. Another good 3D composition is to have different subjects at different depths.

Large breaks into the depth continuum can produce the undesirable “cardboarding” effect. This makes pictures like somebody took flat objects (cardboard figures) and placed them at different depths in the scene. This happens when the total depth of the scene is disproportionate to the volume of objects in the scene. In this case only a few levels of depth are visible, and the transitions between levels do not appear smooth and continuous as in reality.

For 3D photography, as in 2D photography, it is important to use good quality camera electronics. The higher the quality, the better the experience the photographer can generate. Total megapixels do not necessarily relate well with quality. In most cases, 3D viewing is on a display with a resolution of 1080p at most, hence total pixel counts are not as important as the quality of those pixels. In this regard, since larger pixel spacing is less likely to produce noise than smaller spacing (on the same sensor), it is more important to use a camera with a sensor that utilizes larger pixels, has good color reproduction, and has good optics. Additionally, since the goal of stereo photography is to reproduce the feeling of being at a scene, stereo photography is generally not conducive to low-light conditions that would limit that perception (and again, be more likely to add noise).

Another peculiar aspect of 3D photography is the selection of focal lengths. It is better to shoot with smaller focal lengths when possible. Our preference is to shoot at 28 and 35mm. Higher focal lengths result in a smaller field of view and therefore smaller total scene depth. Higher focal lengths also have the tendency to create more cardboarding effects since there is already compression of the scene and hence less depth continuum. At lower focal lengths we typically capture a larger field, which for the most part should have more depth. However, when shooting at lower focal lengths, one should be more careful of objects on the edges of the field of view, as they can be closer and thus require the stereo baseline to be adjusted accordingly.

Proper utilization of perceived depth (i.e., depth budget) in a scene is used by 3D cinematographers as a storytelling device. This is because playing with perceived depth parameters and the time those parameters are applied in a segment can create different emotions. The same is true for still photography as well, and to a certain extent the optimal depth of a scene depends not only on user preferences but also the context of the scene. There is also an artistic element in 3D that can be explored. Although 3D by nature always provides an elevated level of viewer experience if done correctly, it is also possible to create boring or exhilarating 3D content in the same way that boring or exhilarating photos can be created in 2D. Manipulation of depth and other 3D parameters can provide an additional artistic element to photography. Photographers from novice to professional should consider 3D as a new opportunity for expression - an expression that can touch the viewer in a more emotional manner.

Basics of 3D Viewing

The most important aspect of 3D viewing is immersion. How can you take a 3D photo so you feel that you are part of the scene? How you can immerse yourself in a space? You can consider a 3D display as a window into a room where you can see objects outside of the window and inside the window. The size of the 3D display and how you close you are to it determines how immersive the experience can be. The closer you are to the window, the more you are immersed in the “external” 3D space; however, being closer also decreases the total perceived depth of the scene. As you move farther from the 3D display, you can see 3D outside/inside that window with the greatest total perceived depth, but you do not necessarily feel a part of the scene. Therefore it is very important to be at the right distance from the 3D display to enhance the 3D experience. In general, bigger displays provide a better 3D experience. IMAX theaters provide the ultimate experience since viewers are completely immersed in the scene. The smaller the size of the 3D display, the closer you need to be to the display to experience the same effect, or alternately, the greater the disparity between views needs to be. Of course there are limitations on how close you should be to the screen.

Conclusion

In conclusion, 3D photography provides a new way to create and enjoy personal content. It is a technology that allows users to create an immersive, realistic, and new experience. Go ahead - try it! We think you will enjoy it as much as we do.