Wow - Sony 3D Camcorder

[Gary Eickmeier]

I was just in Best Buy, and really impressed by a new Sony 3D Camcorder. It
is the HDR-TD10, and was just reviewed in Videomaker. They liked it, but had
some complaint about the "3D Depth Adjustment Indicator" whatever that is.

This is an impressive little camera because it is just as good a 2D hi def
shooter as anything out there, and in 3D it remains full resolution because
it has two complete lens/imager systems. But even all that is trumped by the
LCD monitor that shows full 3D without glasses! I couldn't believe how sharp
and clear, and good depth and convergence no matter where I pointed it, it
was just about faultless. Would love to see it projected on a new 3D TV, but
I do not have such an animal yet.

Just thought I would let you know, if you can find one on display. They are
selling it for $1249 right now, normally $1499. Shoots on SD card.

Gary Eickmeier

[Brian]

Thanks Gary for the comments on the Sony 3D camera.
It seems that many things are going 3D these days such as TV's and Blu-Ray
players. The camera would be of use if you had a 3D TV, but for me it means
selling my current TV and buying a 3D TV (might wait until they have 3D
TV's without having to wear glasses).
I was interested in your comment that you can see 3D in the view finder
without wearing 3D glasses, it must be similar to the Nintendo 3DS game
platform. Maybe they could develop a small screen for viewing 3D recordings
without wearing glasses.

One small disadvantage with 3D is that it will use more storage memory to
store the extra 3D information when recording in 3D. Good to learn that you
were pleased with the camera.
--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> I was just in Best Buy, and really impressed by a new Sony 3D Camcorder. It
> is the HDR-TD10, and was just reviewed in Videomaker. They liked it, but had
> some complaint about the "3D Depth Adjustment Indicator" whatever that is.

Unfortunately, 3D is dead, but if you have a specific need or desire for 3D,
go for it.

> Just thought I would let you know, if you can find one on display. They are
> selling it for $1249 right now, normally $1499. Shoots on SD card.

The price should drop as demand dwindles, although Sony often resists.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1016782059346946795....@free.teranews.com...

> I was interested in your comment that you can see 3D in the view finder
> without wearing 3D glasses, it must be similar to the Nintendo 3DS game
> platform. Maybe they could develop a small screen for viewing 3D
> recordings
> without wearing glasses.

Yes, and that could save you upwards of $1000 compared to other cameras,
because in a companion article in Videomaker, they talked about the need for
a 3D monitor in the field, which cost that much. This little fellow shows
you what you are getting in each shot, and it doesn't seem too difficult to
get great results.

>
> One small disadvantage with 3D is that it will use more storage memory to
> store the extra 3D information when recording in 3D. Good to learn that
> you
> were pleased with the camera.

Does it? I don't know. I guess if there is twice as much info to record, it
would. But what if it alternated or interlaced as required as you go? Maybe
it doesn't require twice the data. Although, it did say that one advantage
is that you can shoot in 3D all day long and still have a 2D version handy
on your memory chip.

Still need to see the final result on a monitor, though.

Gary Eickmeier

[Brian]

Hi Mxsmanic.
What mights you think 3D is dead? Most blu-ray players support 3D, a lot of
recent movies are made in 3D and many of the new TV's are support 3D. 3D
has just started to become popular.
--
Regards Brian

[ushere]

i'd agree with mxs. 3d is pure novelty / gimmick value at the moment.
whether it develops into anything more 'lasting' remains to be seen.
however, the use of glasses proves a drawback, and screens that don't
need them can induce nausea and disorientation in viewers.

a number of manufactures have even issued warnings about allowing
children to watch 3d for 'extended' periods of time. not a good sign!

holographic tv perhaps, 3d tv, pretty much another marketing ploy
designed to induce people to part with money for a half-baked technology
that isn't going anywhere very fast.

as a pro tv producer of many years, with a wide circle of associates i
can tell you the only people interested in 3d are: hollywood big screen
producers, equipment manufacturers, and perhaps some wedding / event
videographers.

and i think this is my longest post for a long time ;-)

[Gary Eickmeier]

"ushere" <removethis.lesl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jydMq.1226$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...

> i'd agree with mxs. 3d is pure novelty / gimmick value at the moment.
> whether it develops into anything more 'lasting' remains to be seen.
> however, the use of glasses proves a drawback, and screens that don't need
> them can induce nausea and disorientation in viewers.
>
> a number of manufactures have even issued warnings about allowing children
> to watch 3d for 'extended' periods of time. not a good sign!
>
> holographic tv perhaps, 3d tv, pretty much another marketing ploy designed
> to induce people to part with money for a half-baked technology that isn't
> going anywhere very fast.
>
> as a pro tv producer of many years, with a wide circle of associates i can
> tell you the only people interested in 3d are: hollywood big screen
> producers, equipment manufacturers, and perhaps some wedding / event
> videographers.

I dunno. My wife keeps asking what does it add to the communication. I'm
hard put to anwer anything except it draws you into the story more. If done
right.

There are vast clubs and societies devoted to 3D slide projection.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> What mights you think 3D is dead?

The rapid decline in revenue from 3D movies. It's a novelty that soon becomes
tiresome.

3D has been tried at least half a dozen times since the invention of moving
pictures. Each time, it has fallen back into oblivion after a few years. This
time is no different. I knew this from the start of the current 3D wave, and
now the statistics are proving it.

> Most blu-ray players support 3D, a lot of
> recent movies are made in 3D and many of the new TV's are support 3D. 3D
> has just started to become popular.

It has already peaked in popularity, based on things like box-office receipts.
The only people who think it is still the coming thing are the ones who don't
remember any of the six previous 3D fads, which followed exactly the same
pattern.

Apparently that includes some youngsters at places like Sony, which is betting
far more money than it should on 3D.

[David Ruether]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DMnMq.23986$_f4.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com:

3D stills have been around almost as long as 2D stills,
but they never really became "mainstream", even with
lenticular printing so that no viewer was needed to
see the 3D images. BTW, I have a bunch of old 3D images
I made that can be viewed cross-eyed without a viewer,
at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/changing.html
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> I dunno. My wife keeps asking what does it add to the communication. I'm
> hard put to anwer anything except it draws you into the story more. If done
> right.

There are some types of content that benefit from 3D, but most cannot.

There are some unavoidable reasons for this. In real life, 3D vision is an
extreme short-range phenomenon that helps us climb down stairs and grab things
within arm's reach. The 3D perception fades very rapidly with distance, and is
scarcely perceivable at distances of 30 meters or so or beyond. This means
that most action in most films doesn't really benefit at all from 3D, since it
would not be clearly perceived as 3D even in real life.

There has been some research done showing that 3D perception adds almost
nothing to the total information content of an image. It's a lot of trouble to
go to for something that really offers no clear advantage or added value. This
is one reason why 3D fails again and again.

Other reasons are physiological and technical. It's hard to find a truly
convenient, effective way to present two completely different images to each
eye. Most of the methods involve using glasses, and all of them have defects
that can cause eyestrain or even motion sickness.

For example, in real life, when you focus on things at different distances
from your eyes, your brain automatically adjusts the convergence of your
visual axes to match the estimated distance. With 3D projections, though, the
focus distance is always the same, even though the eyes must continually
realign their axes for proper convergence. Human brains are not used to this
and it can cause severe eyestrain over time, as well as double vision,
headaches, nausea, motion sickness, and so on. Of course, in theory, you'd
eventually get used to changing convergence without changing focus ... but
then you'd have the same problems when viewing real-life scenes.

Each method of showing 3D has its own problems. Glasses that use high-speed
shutters, for example, have a problem with motion that is similar to the
artifacts of interlaced video, only worse. When the image is moving, the two
eyes never see exactly the same image. The image shown to one eye differs a
little from the image shown to the other, because they are separated in time.
Of course, you can show the same image temporally to both eyes, but they are
still separated in time for perception, and you halve the frame rate for
depiction of motion, which has consequences of its own.

There are many other problems.

Photography has had 3D for more than a century, and it has never caught on.
Motion pictures have tried it again and again, and it has never caught on.
It's a pretty good bed that 3D will never catch on, just as Smell-O-Vision
never caught on. It's just a gimmick.

[Brian]

Hi Mxismanic.
Thanks for your detailed info why you think 3D may never catch on.
I do feel at the moment it seems to be gimmick to sell TV's and
Blu-ray players as well as try to get people back in the picture
theaters again just like the wide screen and surround sound did.

I agree that there are problems and one of them is when you have a
background and two objects at different distances, you can't see both
objects in 3D as in real life the eyes are adjusted to only one of the
objects. The eyes will see double images of the object that's not
being focused on. If there was one object against a background or if
there is not too much difference in the distance to the camera for
both objects then there is no problem.

I remember with the movies that required wearing coloured glasses that
often the movie had a poor story and the movie was filmed to emphasize
the 3D effect as people seem to want to be entertained more by the 3D
effect. A good story will always win over some gimmick.

I have only seen one movie using the new 3D effect (called Avatar) and
after a while I forgot that the movie was in 3D as I was more
interested in the characters and the story. But some movies such as
horror movies might benifit from being in 3D, then again do you really
want to scare the audience that much.

Regards Brian

[Brian]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

>

>3D stills have been around almost as long as 2D stills,
>but they never really became "mainstream", even with
>lenticular printing so that no viewer was needed to
>see the 3D images. BTW, I have a bunch of old 3D images
>I made that can be viewed cross-eyed without a viewer,
>at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/changing.html
>--DR
>

Thanks Gary.
Good photography. I enjoyed your 3D photos.

Regards Brian

[Brian]

Sorry I mean Thanks David....got the names mixed up...must be the shock
from these earthquakes i've been getting lately.
--
Regards Brian

[Martin Heffels]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:45:44 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

>Hi Mxsmanic.
>What mights you think 3D is dead? Most blu-ray players support 3D, a lot of
>recent movies are made in 3D and many of the new TV's are support 3D. 3D
>has just started to become popular.

"The reports of my death are greatly exagarated" so to speak. It will stay
with us for a long time. I would say in the cinema, we will see a decrease of
3D, but one place where 3D found new ground, is on Youtube/Vimeo etc, where
you can find plenty of 3D extreme sports videos, where using 3D makes the
imagery look a lot more exciting. Most of this stuff is shot on GoPro 3D
camera's, because it's indestructible.
For home-use, 3D is quite exciting for holiday videos (the ones made with some
attention to the images).

[Brian]

Some Sony pocket cameras take pictures in 3D (eg WX7 camera). I think
you pan the camera as it takes the photos. Only problem is that you
need a 3D TV to show the image. You can see the image on the cameras
LCD screen in 3D as you rock the camera while viewing the screen.

It would be great if they invented a small screen for viewing 3D
photos. They may have not done this as it would take away the sales of
3D TV.

I can see a use in advertising for 3D. It would catch your attention
as you walk past a shop window seeing something advertised in 3D.

Maybe one day in the distant future there will be no need for a TV as
we will see images in the air like they did in the Star Wars movie.
Imagine talking to an image of a person in front of you who is really
in another country.

Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Thanks for your detailed info why you think 3D may never catch on.
> I do feel at the moment it seems to be gimmick to sell TV's and
> Blu-ray players as well as try to get people back in the picture
> theaters again just like the wide screen and surround sound did.

If they want people back in the theaters, all they have to do is improve image
quality. 3D makes no real contribution to the overall visual experience, but
higher resolution does. The current "high definition" is only 1920x1080, which
is at least eight times worse than human visual acuity can provide at standard
viewing distances.

If 4K became the norm at theaters, people would come back, at least until
television sets caught up. And even higher resolutions can be useful if the
screen is large enough. That would be a durable, interesting improvement in
the viewing experience. 3D is a waste of time.

> I agree that there are problems and one of them is when you have a
> background and two objects at different distances, you can't see both
> objects in 3D as in real life the eyes are adjusted to only one of the
> objects. The eyes will see double images of the object that's not
> being focused on.

In real life, the eyes see double images of everything. It's just that the
brain aims them so that the point being focused on converges. The brain then
actually fuses the images.

Anyway, the way it works for 3D projection is not the way the brain expects it
to work, and right now there's no solution to this problem.

> I remember with the movies that required wearing coloured glasses that
> often the movie had a poor story and the movie was filmed to emphasize
> the 3D effect as people seem to want to be entertained more by the 3D
> effect. A good story will always win over some gimmick.

Agreed. Colored glasses also have the disadvantage of messing up full-color
images.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> It would be great if they invented a small screen for viewing 3D
> photos. They may have not done this as it would take away the sales of
> 3D TV.

Techniques for 3D still images have existed for ages. Remember the Viewmaster?
But 3D has never caught on for still images, either.

> I can see a use in advertising for 3D. It would catch your attention
> as you walk past a shop window seeing something advertised in 3D.

In order for realistic 3D to make any difference at all, the elements of the
3D scene have to be only a few feet away, because that's the distance at which
3D is very noticeable. Anything beyond that, and it's a waste. And in most
movies and videos, everything is beyond that limit, except for close-ups on
the talent, and do you really need to see that their noses are closer than
their eyes?

> Maybe one day in the distant future there will be no need for a TV as
> we will see images in the air like they did in the Star Wars movie.
> Imagine talking to an image of a person in front of you who is really
> in another country.

I'd settle for 4K on a flat screen.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Heffels writes:

> "The reports of my death are greatly exagarated" so to speak. It will stay
> with us for a long time.

That's what they said the last half-dozen times that it was attempted, and it
never stayed.

> I would say in the cinema, we will see a decrease of
> 3D, but one place where 3D found new ground, is on Youtube/Vimeo etc, where
> you can find plenty of 3D extreme sports videos, where using 3D makes the
> imagery look a lot more exciting. Most of this stuff is shot on GoPro 3D
> camera's, because it's indestructible.

3D on YouTube is a vanishingly small part of the total video content.

> For home-use, 3D is quite exciting for holiday videos (the ones made with some
> attention to the images).

If the right attention is paid to the images, 3D is unnecessary.

[Brian]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
>> It would be great if they invented a small screen for viewing 3D
>> photos. They may have not done this as it would take away the sales of
>> 3D TV.
>
> Techniques for 3D still images have existed for ages. Remember the Viewmaster?
> But 3D has never caught on for still images, either.
>
>> I can see a use in advertising for 3D. It would catch your attention
>> as you walk past a shop window seeing something advertised in 3D.
>

I was thinking more of the 3D screen that the Nintendo 3DS has. You don't
need glasses to see the 3D image but you do need to be directly in front of
the screen so only one person can see the 3D effect.

>
> I'd settle for 4K on a flat screen.

It may reach a stage where the eyes can't tell the difference between a 4k
and a 8k screen unless the screen is huge in size. When screens get that
good we will be able to zoom in on a car licence plate in the distance and
be able to clearly read it.
Then again it will depend on how good the camera is at recording the image.
With todays improved screens the picture in picture effect is much easier
to view.


--
Regards Brian

[Martin Heffels]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:39:51 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's what they said the last half-dozen times that it was attempted, and it
>never stayed.

But that was before it was affordable fro homeuse. Even independent cinema can
afford to shoot 3D as it is cheap. This might give us better results than the
me2-me2 garbage from Hollywood.

>3D on YouTube is a vanishingly small part of the total video content.

It isn't.

>If the right attention is paid to the images, 3D is unnecessary.

3D adds an extra dimension to get a much better feeling how the area is where
the traveller was. Buildings, landscapes. It will speak much more to the
viewers imagination than a well shot flat image.

[David Ruether]

"bcl...@es.co.nz" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:
q6hag7t8o9i8551s1...@4ax.com:

> I can see a use in advertising for 3D. It would catch your attention
> as you walk past a shop window seeing something advertised in 3D.

At the local mall there is already a three-sided advertising
kiosk with moderately large screens with 3D video that does not
require glasses to "enjoy".;-) The resolution is rather low,
though, as if 720P content has been split between two images
for each frame. Kinda fun for a couple of minutes as a novelty,
but not for watching for very long... (Give me *GOOD* 2D 1080P
any day over that!)
--DR

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0jkag71518pemea11...@4ax.com...

> If they want people back in the theaters, all they have to do is improve
> image
> quality. 3D makes no real contribution to the overall visual experience,
> but
> higher resolution does. The current "high definition" is only 1920x1080,
> which
> is at least eight times worse than human visual acuity can provide at
> standard
> viewing distances.

I have never heard anyone, ever, in social conversations about movies
comment on image quality. Story. Performances. Art direction. Set design.
All those things are top of mind for regular movie goers, but I question
image quality as a factor for theater attendance. (Actually, I now remember
a conversation about a movie shot in 16 mm, I forget the title, where people
commented that they quickly forgot about the graininess as they became
immersed in the story.)

> If 4K became the norm at theaters, people would come back, at least until
> television sets caught up. And even higher resolutions can be useful if
> the
> screen is large enough. That would be a durable, interesting improvement
> in
> the viewing experience. 3D is a waste of time.

4K appears to be the next standard for motion picture work according to
recent articles in industry publications.

Steve King

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Martin Heffels" <goo...@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:3qabg7d6ka2isiqne...@4ax.com...

> 3D adds an extra dimension to get a much better feeling how the area is
> where
> the traveller was. Buildings, landscapes. It will speak much more to the
> viewers imagination than a well shot flat image.

It just seems to continually fascinate us, because it is the one dimension
that we don't normally see in most pictures. I experimented with it as a kid
after seeing a magazine article that printed 3D images that could be viewed
with a mirror. One image was normal, and right beside it was the other eye
image printed reversed, so that if you put a mirror between them and then
put your forehead up to the mirror and looked over at the correct image, you
saw both converged with correct orientation. So I took two shots of still
objects, printed one of them reversed, and glued them together so that the
mirror trick would work. It was pretty interesting.

So I am thinking that if the process were perfected so that the process of
viewing the movie were more comfortable and more accurate, 3D wise, then it
would catch on like wildfire to the extent that 2D would become passe.

Maybe.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

> I have never heard anyone, ever, in social conversations about movies
> comment on image quality. Story. Performances. Art direction. Set design.
> All those things are top of mind for regular movie goers, but I question
> image quality as a factor for theater attendance.

If image quality is not a factor, then why doesn't everyone just watch a VHS
tape?

People don't have to talk about it for it to be important. Image quality is
also one of those things that one notices unconsciously, like sound quality.
If it's good, nobody says anything but they leave the theater with a good
feeling. If it's bad, they whine and complain about it.

It's like camera work and audio engineering: if it's done well, nobody
realizes that it was done at all.

> Actually, I now remember
> a conversation about a movie shot in 16 mm, I forget the title, where people
> commented that they quickly forgot about the graininess as they became
> immersed in the story.

Which makes one wonder even more about the utility of 3D.

Still, if Avatar had been shot in 2D on 16 mm film, nobody would have gone to
see it. The story was terrible.

> 4K appears to be the next standard for motion picture work according to
> recent articles in industry publications.

That would be great. Although right now, just preserving 1920x1080 from end to
end seems to be a challenge.

There is some 4K content on YouTube, but I don't have a screen big enough to
check it out. It looks fabulous on a normal screen, though.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> It may reach a stage where the eyes can't tell the difference between a 4k
> and a 8k screen unless the screen is huge in size. When screens get that
> good we will be able to zoom in on a car licence plate in the distance and
> be able to clearly read it.

To find out if resolution is high enough, divide your distance from the screen
by 6875. If the pixels on the screen are smaller in dimension than the result,
there's enough resolution to match human vision; if they are larger, the
resolution can still be improved.

Suppose you have a screen that measures 50 x 25 feet, and suppose you are
viewing it from 100 feet away. At that distance, pixels would have to be no
larger than 4.5 millimeters in size. Divide the screen size by that pixel
size, and you get a screen resolution of 3400 x 1700 pixels, or 5.8
megapixels. That's what you would need to match human vision.

If you are further from the screen, you can get by with fewer pixels. If you
are closer, you need more. A common figure is six megapixels, minimum, for
decent human-level image quality. A 4K screen is about eight megapixels, which
works pretty well, as long as you're not too close to the screen. Today's
so-called "high definition," at 2 megapixels or even 0.9 megapixels, falls way
short of this goal. And I hate to even mention VHS, at about 0.07 megapixels,
or about 100 times worse than what human vision requires.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Heffels writes:

> But that was before it was affordable fro homeuse.

It did not fail in the past because of cost. It failed in every case because
it was a novelty that didn't really add anything to movies and people quickly
tired of it.

> Even independent cinema can afford to shoot 3D as it is cheap.

3D photography has been cheap for a hundred years, but it has yet to catch on.

> 3D adds an extra dimension to get a much better feeling how the area is where
> the traveller was. Buildings, landscapes. It will speak much more to the
> viewers imagination than a well shot flat image.

Not so. First, 3D adds very little to the overall information content, in
recent studies I've seen. Second, anything as far away as a building and
especially a landscape isn't in 3D, anyway, as 3D vision fades to useless at a
very short distance. If you're standing across the street from a building, you
may perceive some 3D in looking at it, but you won't see any 3D on a skyline,
nor will you see it in a distant landscape. In general, for anything more than
a couple of feet away, 3D is nearly insignificant, and it quickly fades to
imperceptibility. For objects are greater distances, other visual cues are
used to determine distance.

For example, if you look at the silhouette of a distant ferris wheel that is
at an angle relative to you, you won't be able to tell which way it is facing,
because it's too far away for 3D to work. Many other examples could be given.

[Brian]

Don't know why they never invented a movie 3d viewfinder that you hold up
to your eyes to watch a 3d movie. They have headphone for stereo sound so
why not a 3d viewfinder (I'm not referring to the viewfinder on a camera).
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

HD is more for large screens. There is not much difference in watching HD
on a small 14 LCD monitor compared to a Std picture.

Thanks for the info Mxsmanic.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

There is also a problem if the object is too close just like putting your
finger in front of your eyes and looking at a object further away.

It's possible to create a movie that has dept without using 3D. A branch
from a tree near to the camera can create a 3d effect. Following someone
walking with trees going pass the camera between the person and the camera
gives an illusion of a 3d effect. Walking with the camera in dense bush
with branches moving out of the way of the camera gives a 3d effect. So in
the end with some skill you can create a 3d movie without a 3d camera. With
most cameras having a built in stabiliser its possible to walk around an
object while recording, this helps to make the object more 3D. A technique
I have been using recently.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Processing a 4k video would be very demanding for the camera. First you
need a very high quality lens, fast processors and a large storage media.
The way technology it could be possible in the near future.
--
Regards Brian

[ushere]

sorry brian, here already ;-)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/tg-daily-hands-4k-red-camera-unwrapping-lamborghini-video-cameras,5156.html

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/02/canons-4k-multipurpose-camera-concept-weakens-knees-shoots-vid/

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:818012496347522494.7...@free.teranews.com...

> Don't know why they never invented a movie 3d viewfinder that you hold up
> to your eyes to watch a 3d movie. They have headphone for stereo sound so
> why not a 3d viewfinder (I'm not referring to the viewfinder on a camera).

Good thought. I know they had some cheap virtual image glasses that could
project a TV image as if it were a 6 ft screen in front of you. I think that
was just SD, and not 3D, but that should be possible as long as idiots won't
use them driving a car.

Gary Eickmeier

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:muqcg7h0l7k4ndva8...@4ax.com...

> Steve King writes:
>
>> I have never heard anyone, ever, in social conversations about movies
>> comment on image quality. Story. Performances. Art direction. Set
>> design.
>> All those things are top of mind for regular movie goers, but I question
>> image quality as a factor for theater attendance.
>
> If image quality is not a factor, then why doesn't everyone just watch a
> VHS
> tape?

If that were all that was available, as it was for so many years, people
would watch VHS with pleasure.

> People don't have to talk about it for it to be important. Image quality
> is
> also one of those things that one notices unconsciously, like sound
> quality.
> If it's good, nobody says anything but they leave the theater with a good
> feeling. If it's bad, they whine and complain about it.
>
> It's like camera work and audio engineering: if it's done well, nobody
> realizes that it was done at all.

I agree that picture quality, camera work, and sound track are important. I
believe that your original argument suggested that with greater picture
quality more people would return to the theater. I believe that's true only
if they can't get it at home. Most people, I believe, find very little
difference in picture quality between the theater and their 50" plasma
screens. Watching a 50 foot wide screen is certainly different, but picture
quality is not what makes it so. If you mean that people will buy tickets
for a dramatically different visual experience that is only available in the
theater then I do agree with that. I'd put 3D in that category. However,
what brings me to the movies is the experience of watching a story in a dark
room with a bunch of other people. Years ago I remember one very snowy
night in Chicago, when my wife and I plus three other audience members were
the only one's who showed up for a play. The show must go on. So, we five
in a house seating about 100 watched two acts performed enthusiastically by
excellent actors. It just wasn't the same as it would have been with a
larger audience. The audience is part of the movie presentation or live
theater.... for me, that is.

Steve King

Steve King

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:je742k$uus$1...@news.albasani.net...

> I agree that picture quality, camera work, and sound track are important.
> I believe that your original argument suggested that with greater picture
> quality more people would return to the theater. I believe that's true
> only if they can't get it at home. Most people, I believe, find very
> little difference in picture quality between the theater and their 50"
> plasma screens. Watching a 50 foot wide screen is certainly different,
> but picture quality is not what makes it so. If you mean that people will
> buy tickets for a dramatically different visual experience that is only
> available in the theater then I do agree with that. I'd put 3D in that
> category. However, what brings me to the movies is the experience of
> watching a story in a dark room with a bunch of other people. Years ago I
> remember one very snowy night in Chicago, when my wife and I plus three
> other audience members were the only one's who showed up for a play. The
> show must go on. So, we five in a house seating about 100 watched two
> acts performed enthusiastically by excellent actors. It just wasn't the
> same as it would have been with a larger audience. The audience is part
> of the movie presentation or live theater.... for me, that is.

Interesting point. Picture quality is usually better at home than in the
theater. Sound can be, too, if you are into audio and have a good home
theater setup.

However, note that the bad picture quality in the theater was usually due to
the vagaries of film projection, even with automatic focus mechanisms and
the projectionist using the right lens, it was just... well, film
projection. But now most all of them are using digital projection and
receiving their movies on hard drives. So now the image quality should be
consistent at least, and if the projector is a good one, should be a lot
better than film projection, just like at home. No more lousy prints, no
more reel changes, no more bad projectionists. This may be what is making
the 3D revolution possible as well.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/04/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

> Martin Heffels writes:

>> "The reports of my death are greatly exagarated" so to speak. It will stay
>> with us for a long time.

> That's what they said the last half-dozen times that it was attempted, and it
> never stayed.

Inter alia, this thread contradicts that assertion :-)

3D is still here...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Brian]

There are a number of disadvantages in going to a theatre compared with
watching a movie at home.
Not being able to pause the movie if you need to go to the toilet.
Getting a seat too close to the screen.
Having to travel to the theatre on a cold wet night
Not able to see the movie as the theatre is fully booked.
Falling asleep and missing some of the movie.
A tall person in front of you blocking your view.
You miss some of the dialog as someone next to you distracted you.
You can't take a break from tne movie if its a long movie.
You can only watch it once.
Can't adjust tne volume of the sound if it is too low or too loud.


--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

it was for this reason that Lucas the creator of Star Wars wanted theatres
to show his movies in the best possible quality, so some theatres were
setup to the standards that Lucas wanted. I can't remember the name of the
setup.

The same can be said for all movies. Someone at work had watched the Lord
of the rings movie and could not understand what was so great about the
movie. I find out later that he had watched it on a 14 inch tube TV. It's
just not the same as watching it on a big screen with surround sound.

There's not much for the projectionist to do these days, i think their job
may be replaced with a fully automated system.
--
Regards Brian

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/06/2012, Brian posted:

That's an excellent list, but don't forget the sticky floor, consisting
of not fully dried soft drink spills :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Processing a 4k video would be very demanding for the camera. First you
> need a very high quality lens, fast processors and a large storage media.
> The way technology it could be possible in the near future.

I'm sure technology will provide. What worries me is time to market. The
current high-definition TV has been around for at least a quarter-century, but
only in recent years has it actually come to market. At that rate, who knows
how long it will be before we actually see and can use 4K?

The lenses shouldn't be a problem, as still photography has been using lenses
of even higher quality for ages. Probably bandwidth will be the big obstacle,
just as it is now.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

> I believe that your original argument suggested that with greater picture
> quality more people would return to the theater. I believe that's true only
> if they can't get it at home.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Obviously if they can get the same thing at
home, there's no reason to go to the cinema.

Many people in the cinema's target demographic--young people, especially
teenage boys--go to the theater for the social interaction. But for those who
aren't interested in socializing, there has to be something to justify the
overhead and annoyance of going to the cinema instead of just turning on the
home TV.

Anyway, I was thinking that better image quality would bring in more people
than 3D. Studios are spending their money on the wrong thing ... again.

> Most people, I believe, find very little
> difference in picture quality between the theater and their 50" plasma
> screens. Watching a 50 foot wide screen is certainly different, but picture
> quality is not what makes it so.

Well, they could be going to socialize, as I've mentioned. And I do notice
that modern cinemas have awfully small screens that rarely seem to be adjusted
and in focus, so there's less and less reason to go to the cinema. In the case
of some films, I've had a better image and sound experience watching them at
home with headphones than I got watching the same thing at the multiplex.

> If you mean that people will buy tickets
> for a dramatically different visual experience that is only available in the
> theater then I do agree with that. I'd put 3D in that category.

3D isn't that dramatically different, though. The original IMAX process was
dramatically different, although now IMAX has ruined that by applying its name
to all sorts of everyday cinema, and not just to the original high-quality
experience.

> However, what brings me to the movies is the experience of watching a story
> in a dark room with a bunch of other people.

Socialization, then. I think that's probably the key draw of the cinema these
days.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> But now most all of them are using digital projection and
> receiving their movies on hard drives. So now the image quality should be
> consistent at least, and if the projector is a good one, should be a lot
> better than film projection, just like at home.

How many cinemas are using good projectors? A 2K projector is not a good
projector, it's significantly worse than film.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Can't adjust tne volume of the sound if it is too low or too loud.

These days I always bring ear plugs. Excessive sound levels in cinemas are one
of my pet peeves, and one reason I'm reluctant to see movies at the cinema.
But all your other points are other good reasons not to go.

You forgot to mention the high price of each viewing of the film, although
studios hope to force you to do that to view at home, soon, too.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Gene E. Bloch" <bloc...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
news:9mpo9r...@mid.individual.net...

> That's an excellent list, but don't forget the sticky floor, consisting of
> not fully dried soft drink spills :-)

...seat kickers, smart phone surfers, talkers, messers.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> HD is more for large screens.

HD isn't really HD, at least not if you're talking about 1920x1080. If you put
it on a big screen, it's easy to see that it's not nearly as sharp as real
life.

But actually it's the visual angle subtended by the screen image that counts.
In other words, a 1-foot-wide screen viewed from 2 feet away has the same
visual effect as a 100-foot-wide screen viewed from 200 feet away.

Often a key difference is sound, as a good sound system can make the visuals
seem more immersive even though the visual quality doesn't change. At the same
time, though, I think some cinemas and home theaters overdo it. I always found
it odd to see home theaters with extremely elaborate sound systems and a VHS
video projector for the images.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Don't know why they never invented a movie 3d viewfinder that you hold up
> to your eyes to watch a 3d movie. They have headphone for stereo sound so
> why not a 3d viewfinder (I'm not referring to the viewfinder on a camera).

Well, they did it for still photos. The old Viewmaster gadgets did a fabulous
job of showing rich 3D still photo content. Even so, they eventually
disappeared from the radar, as 3D just isn't that much of an attraction.

I had a Sony headset once that included goggles for the image, and it could
have easily projected completely independent images for each eye, but the
resolution was really low.

And therein lies another problem: Camera convergence. In the real world, when
you look at something, your eyes move so that the part of the image that
you're looking at is aligned in both eyes. In the movies, though, that doesn't
happen. The cameras stay at the same angle all the time, and it's to your eyes
to make the necessary adjustments. This can also mess up your eyes.

[Mxsmanic]

Gene E. Bloch writes:

> 3D is still here...

It depends on which numbers you look at. At best, 3D is fading fast.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> It's possible to create a movie that has dept without using 3D. A branch
> from a tree near to the camera can create a 3d effect. Following someone
> walking with trees going pass the camera between the person and the camera
> gives an illusion of a 3d effect. Walking with the camera in dense bush
> with branches moving out of the way of the camera gives a 3d effect.

Yup. And skilled cinematographers and directors have been using those visual
clues for as long as cinemas have existed.

Indeed, even your own eyes depend on those clues in a great many situations,
since 3D vision only works well at extremely close range.

If you cover one eye with a patch and go about your business during the day,
you'll find that 99% of what you do doesn't change at all. However, you might
notice some difficulty picking up a coffee cup or walking up or down stairs,
because those are among the few tasks that benefit greatly from 3D vision.
Obviously something like playing tennis benefits hugely from 3D, too. But
those are the exceptions (albeit important exceptions). The thing is, you
don't have to pick up coffee cups or swing at tennis balls when you're
watching a movie, so what good is 3D?

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/06/2012, Gary Eickmeier posted:

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/06/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

> Gene E. Bloch writes:

>> 3D is still here...

> It depends on which numbers you look at. At best, 3D is fading fast.

If you didn't pick up on it, the number I'm looking at and commenting
on is the size of this thread, about to turn 48 as I hit send, plus all
the remarks in the thread about 3D as it currently *does* exist.

[Brian]

I have a feeling that it might be difficult to drive a car if you have
vision in one eye only.
Also surround sound never fully became popular. Audio CD's are in stereo
and most music systems play back in stereo. You will still hear the all
movie sound in stereo.
Like most things 3D is a novelty as we all want to experience something
different. At the moment it seems to be a sales method to get people to buy
a 3D TV to replace their current HD TV.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Often a key difference is sound, as a good sound system can make the visuals
> seem more immersive even though the visual quality doesn't change. At the same
>

Yes i agree. The deep sound of an object being dropped from a sub woofer
can might the object look heavy.
--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

togfg7l8s33hnt9to...@4ax.com:

> Brian writes:

> > HD is more for large screens.

In general, yes. For casual viewing (as for watching the
news while I'm having lunch), the 27" CRT at around 5'
does fine - but for "serious" viewing, it's the 42" LCD
viewed *on axis* from 5.5', with a *properly placed and
EQed* PAIR (only!!!) of very good speakers for the audio
(I find "surround sound with sub" systems just directionally
confusing and worse-sounding at best).

> HD isn't really HD, at least not if you're talking about 1920x1080. If you put
> it on a big screen, it's easy to see that it's not nearly as sharp as real
> life.

Not as sharp, but it is capable of displaying video and
film sources at maximum quality, being subjectively VERY
SHARP with the best video sources, and capable of clearly
showing film grain (unless the TV excessively suppresses
image noise - TVs do vary in their image quality...).

> But actually it's the visual angle subtended by the screen image that counts.
> In other words, a 1-foot-wide screen viewed from 2 feet away has the same
> visual effect as a 100-foot-wide screen viewed from 200 feet away.

Yes.

> Often a key difference is sound, as a good sound system can make the visuals
> seem more immersive even though the visual quality doesn't change.

As an "audio nut", that's why I'm as concerned with sound
quality as with the picture quality (about which I'm also
a "nut" ;-). I've seen people waste "zillions" putting their
expensive BIG-screen TVs W - A - Y over "there", WAY off
center, and WAY up there over the fireplace, then strew a
multi-channel sound system casually around an acoustically
poor room. Bleah....

> At the same
> time, though, I think some cinemas and home theaters overdo it. I always found
> it odd to see home theaters with extremely elaborate sound systems and a VHS
> video projector for the images.

I'm not a fan of projectors...;-) And, I agree, for some,
"BOOM - BLAM - ZAP" spinning around the space at ear damaging
levels while watching a poor-quality, overly bright/contrasty/
color-saturated (out of adjustment) image seems to be the aim.
Again, "bleah...";-) I stay home, wait for the movie to appear
in the "Red Box" for $1.00 or $1.29 to rent, and enjoy it at
home with better image and sound quality, and in a better
environment.
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:

699123285347638682.5...@free.teranews.com:

There are many other things that can produce even moderately
low-frequency sounds - but most "subwoofers" cannot go much
below about 60 cps (if anywhere near that), and most sources
(movie or CD) don't generally have much below that either.
I'm a LOW- bass nut, and have built subwoofers for many
decades that are flat to 23 cps (or well below - see --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Audio.html ). The box is
now stuffed up to the front face of the port to the left of
the (modified) 24" driver, and it can go strongly into the
16 cps area of the best recordings of very-large organs (the
air feels dense and the floor ripples - FUN! ;-). at the far
left in the photo is the last of my "compact" subs, tested
flat to 23 cps. BTW, this (transmission-line) box design has
a slow roll-off below the turn-over point (6db/octave for
T-Line, 12db/octave for sealed box, 24db/octave for bass
reflexes). The TV has been replaced with a 24" LCD, raised
to eye level, and moved forward considerably. The TV audio
is provided entirely by a very good (but EQ'ed) pair of small
speakers (placed beyond the sides of the subwoofer) that
provide excellent smoothness and a frequency range from
about 60-20k cps, good enough for very satisfying audio for
video.
--DR

[Gary Eickmeier]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:je9nlo$mf1$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> I'm a LOW- bass nut, and have built subwoofers for many
> decades that are flat to 23 cps

"cps"? MAN, are you old!!!

Gary Eickmeier

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:

1265933267347639389....@free.teranews.com:

> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brian writes:

> >> It's possible to create a movie that has dept without using 3D. A branch
> >> from a tree near to the camera can create a 3d effect. Following someone
> >> walking with trees going pass the camera between the person and the camera
> >> gives an illusion of a 3d effect. Walking with the camera in dense bush
> >> with branches moving out of the way of the camera gives a 3d effect.

> > Yup. And skilled cinematographers and directors have been using those visual
> > clues for as long as cinemas have existed.
> >
> > Indeed, even your own eyes depend on those clues in a great many situations,
> > since 3D vision only works well at extremely close range.
> >
> > If you cover one eye with a patch and go about your business during the day,
> > you'll find that 99% of what you do doesn't change at all. However, you might
> > notice some difficulty picking up a coffee cup or walking up or down stairs,
> > because those are among the few tasks that benefit greatly from 3D vision.
> > Obviously something like playing tennis benefits hugely from 3D, too. But
> > those are the exceptions (albeit important exceptions). The thing is, you
> > don't have to pick up coffee cups or swing at tennis balls when you're
> > watching a movie, so what good is 3D?

> I have a feeling that it might be difficult to drive a car if you have
> vision in one eye only.

Not really. One does need to compensate for the loss of some side
vision on one side, but it should not take long. I have "mono vision",
with which I swap eye predominance to see sharply at various distances
(I grew up with it, but now I use it to extend my range of sharp vision
without having to change glasses. see --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/4-distance-glasses.htm ). The
"swapping", though, makes catching things nearly impossible for me...

> Also surround sound never fully became popular. Audio CD's are in stereo
> and most music systems play back in stereo. You will still hear the all
> movie sound in stereo.

I agree. The "rear channel" stuff sounds "phony" to me (a gimmick that
interferes with good audio more than it helps).

> Like most things 3D is a novelty as we all want to experience something
> different. At the moment it seems to be a sales method to get people to buy
> a 3D TV to replace their current HD TV.
> --
> Regards Brian

Ah, yes - marketing, yet again...;-)
--DR

[Steve King]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message

news:1076057819347593668....@free.teranews.com...

Spoken like a true agoraphobic.

Steve King

[David Ruether]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:
ixZNq.102065$Pw4....@unlimited.newshosting.com:

Huh? 8^)
So, do you prefer the more awkward and less description-encompassing
"Hertz"???;-) But, "cps" is exactly descriptive of wave frequency,
and "Hertz" is also a car rental company...;-)
--DR

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ilgfg7t49jfj9l42k...@4ax.com...

Good lord! I know this is a techie group, but you guys don't get out much,
do you? Live music? Live theater? Dinner with friends? I hope you do
something other than sit at your computers... he says as he sits at his
computer. But I'm a short-timer at the keyboard today, I'm off this evening
to the Jazz Showcase to see/hear Bobby Lewis coax sublime sounds from his
fluglehorn with every tune a one-of-a-kind performance never to be heard by
mechanical/digital reproduction.

Steve King

[David Ruether]

"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:

je9pso$4kv$1...@news.albasani.net:

> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ilgfg7t49jfj9l42k...@4ax.com...
> > Brian writes:

> >> Can't adjust tne volume of the sound if it is too low or too loud.

> > These days I always bring ear plugs. Excessive sound levels in cinemas are
> > one
> > of my pet peeves, and one reason I'm reluctant to see movies at the
> > cinema.
> > But all your other points are other good reasons not to go.
> >
> > You forgot to mention the high price of each viewing of the film, although
> > studios hope to force you to do that to view at home, soon, too.

All good points about the advantages of *enjoying* movie-viewing
without the MANY downsides of trying to do that at a movie theater
(I may never go to one again...;-).

> Good lord! I know this is a techie group, but you guys don't get out much,
> do you? Live music? Live theater? Dinner with friends? I hope you do
> something other than sit at your computers... he says as he sits at his
> computer.

Nah, I'm "stuck" with my computers, stereo, and TV (I'm pretty much
house-bound and I can't read books - and the last time I tried going
to a performance [Joan Baez] was a disaster). I love well-performed
orchestral music played in a good hall and heard from a good seat
(same for a ***GOOD*** play - but I walked out of the last one, a
David Mamet monstrosity [all shouting and cliches]).

> But I'm a short-timer at the keyboard today, I'm off this evening
> to the Jazz Showcase to see/hear Bobby Lewis coax sublime sounds from his
> fluglehorn with every tune a one-of-a-kind performance never to be heard by
> mechanical/digital reproduction.
>
> Steve King

Too bad the performance is not to be recorded by a good technician
well enough to justify issuing it on SACD (these disks can be AMAZING,
even when played on a standard CD player). BTW, if you are into
jazz, Sonoma is a company that is remastering Blue Note records in
the SACD format. I have a disk they produced of "Music for Organ,
Brass, and Timpani" that is superb!
--DR

[Gary Eickmeier]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:je9s4n$q3u$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

So David, you think the SACD discs sound better than CD or Dolby Digital
5.1? What are you playing them on? Getting the full decode and surround
sound?

All of this is interesting in that we can get a lot better sound at home,
too, because when you go to a live show of jazz or pop, all you are hearing
is a mono presentation on PA speakers. They will mike EVERYTHING and there
is no choice to listen to live, acoustic instruments without all of the
blech.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:je9p78$nkd$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

The truth Hurtz.

Yah, I hated it when they changed that too, but now there are two of us.
Don't think we're gonna win.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:uugfg714jjkd1m4m5...@4ax.com...

> And therein lies another problem: Camera convergence. In the real world,
> when
> you look at something, your eyes move so that the part of the image that
> you're looking at is aligned in both eyes. In the movies, though, that
> doesn't
> happen. The cameras stay at the same angle all the time, and it's to your
> eyes
> to make the necessary adjustments. This can also mess up your eyes.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the pro cameras will do convergence on
the main subject, if desired. It's a tricky business, and I don't claim to
know all about it, but the basic idea is objects that are coincident in
projection will image at screen depth, objects that need to pop out will
have more separation, and infinity will (hopefully) put your eyes in a
straight ahead no convergence mode. They try to not have anything give you a
negative convergence, such that your eyes would have to diverge in order to
fuse the images, which would be uncomfortable.

So it is all important.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Don't you guys think that 3D might be helpful in sports broadcasts?
Superbowl?

Gary Eickmeier

[David Ruether]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:

sw0Oq.102074$Pw4....@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> Don't you guys think that 3D might be helpful in sports broadcasts?
> Superbowl?
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Unlikely, since everything is either distant (no 3D) or too
fast to see easily in 3D close in(?). BTW, I was surprised
to see the first 3D on cable here was a GOLF game!!!!!!!!
GOLF?!?!?!?! WEIRD........!!! 8^)
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:em0Oq.21063$nN3....@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:je9s4n$q3u$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> > "Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
> > news:je9pso$4kv$1...@news.albasani.net:

On an old video disk player (it sounds good as a CD player...;-).
And, no, no full decode and surround sound - but the recordings
are so well made that they seem to have the sound of the original
space, the instruments sound "real", the detail level is very
high (without being bright or harsh), and I don't miss at all
the "nonsense" stuff. 'Course, I am fortunate to have some VERY
good Apogee ribbon speakers plus the huge subwoofer (and they
match and blend very well...;-).

> All of this is interesting in that we can get a lot better sound at home,
> too, because when you go to a live show of jazz or pop, all you are hearing
> is a mono presentation on PA speakers. They will mike EVERYTHING and there
> is no choice to listen to live, acoustic instruments without all of the
> blech.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Yes, unless the amplification is done skillfully. We have been
fortunate here to have people who can do amplification that is
so good that it sounds just like you can hear everything properly,
but it is loud enough to hear everything easily. That CAN be
done...;-)
--DR

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/07/2012, Gary Eickmeier posted:

I still say Centigrade...

I was reading a chapter in a Java book about enums, and his example was
temperature scales. He had lots - Fahrenheit, Kelvin, Rankine, Reaumur,
Celsius, ..., but no Centigrade. That hertz :-)

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/07/2012, Gary Eickmeier posted:

> Don't you guys think that 3D might be helpful in sports broadcasts?
> Superbowl?

> Gary Eickmeier

I recently watched, in 3D, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams", about the
Paleolithic paintings in the Chauvet cave in France.

It's the first thing I've seen where 3D seems reasonable, but there are
odd effects from time to time, and moreover I looked at part of it
later in 2D, and I think that might be quite good enough :-)

[Brian]

What would be useful is to give the viewer a choice of different angles
from different cameras or have an option of picture in picture to show two
or more different angles. I'm surprised that this feature is lacking on
many blu-ray discs. There is plenty of room on a blu-ray disc to add extra
video.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Remember the Peppers ghost technique (Google it if you don't know of it).
What they need is a TV that has several surfaces to project images on to.
The object in front would go on the front most surface then the next object
goes on a surface a bit further way etc. the surfaces need to be
transparent is there is so the far way objects can be seen. it's a bit like
cardboard cut outs of objects that stand up. No glasses are needed to see
the 3D effect.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Yes a studio processed sound recorded at a live concert is better than the
sound you get at the live concert. The last live concert I went to I found
myself too close to one of the speakers and with a crowd of people at the
concert there is not much room to find an alternative location.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

i tried something different last night. I went to an out door movie in the
park.
Plenty of room to move about but you need to get a good view without heads
and trees in the way. Also I had to wait until it got dark before the movie
was shown. I would not want to do it too often.
Do they still have out door theatres where you sit in your car to watch the
movie? America use to have this but maybe they stopped doing this? I don't
live in America so I'm hoping someone can tell me.
--
Regards Brian

[Steve King]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:em0Oq.21063$nN3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

A generality. and, "No generality is worth a damn, including this one."
Oliver Wendell Holmes. Jazz Showcase...minimal reinforcement. Same for the
Green Mill. My favorite booth about 15 feet from the front of the stage.
Any music in the Auditorium Theater in Chicago. And, David. You've got
special circumstances. The rest of you, go somewhere;-)

Steve King

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

> Good lord! I know this is a techie group, but you guys don't get out much,
> do you? Live music? Live theater? Dinner with friends? I hope you do
> something other than sit at your computers... he says as he sits at his
> computer.

I'm an introvert. I enjoy sitting in front of the computer, much more so than
wasting time eating dinner with someone, or vegetating in a bar drinking
alcohol and having my hearing ruined by loud music, etc. There's nothing wrong
with sitting in front of a computer, and for an introvert, there's no
sacrifice in doing so.

> But I'm a short-timer at the keyboard today, I'm off this evening
> to the Jazz Showcase to see/hear Bobby Lewis coax sublime sounds from his
> fluglehorn with every tune a one-of-a-kind performance never to be heard by
> mechanical/digital reproduction.

A sound file at 192 kHz and 32 bits will duplicate anything you can possibly
hear in person, and without the need to leave the house.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/07/2012, Brian posted:

There are a very few left. They are mentioned from time to time in
various media...

I have no specifics without Googling, but I'm being lazy :-)

I *can* tell you I haven't been to a drive-in (that's the name, short
for drive-in movie or drive-in theater) in decades. Also, I recently -
two weeks ago - drove past a place that used to be one (near Arcata,
California), and it was full of vacation travel trailers. It looked to
me like a storage lot for a trailer dealer. The screen was quite
disheveled.

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> In general, yes. For casual viewing (as for watching the
> news while I'm having lunch), the 27" CRT at around 5'
> does fine - but for "serious" viewing, it's the 42" LCD
> viewed *on axis* from 5.5', with a *properly placed and
> EQed* PAIR (only!!!) of very good speakers for the audio
> (I find "surround sound with sub" systems just directionally
> confusing and worse-sounding at best).

Sounds nice, but why not headphones instead of speakers?

> As an "audio nut", that's why I'm as concerned with sound
> quality as with the picture quality (about which I'm also
> a "nut" ;-). I've seen people waste "zillions" putting their
> expensive BIG-screen TVs W - A - Y over "there", WAY off
> center, and WAY up there over the fireplace, then strew a
> multi-channel sound system casually around an acoustically
> poor room. Bleah....

I just wear headphones.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> I'm not so sure about that. I think the pro cameras will do convergence on
> the main subject, if desired.

Even if they do, that will only work if you are looking at the main subject
yourself. If you look at anything else in the scene, your natural tendency to
adjust convergence to align what you're looking at won't work, because the
camera won't be aligned on that.

I don't think pro cameras do it, though, because then you need a fancy system
to decide how and when to adjust convergence. With human eyes, you don't just
converge on a specific focus plane at a specific distance, you also converge
on a specific spot within that plane, which could be in the center of your
visual field, or at the sides, or wherever.

A 3D system would have to be very complex indeed to accommodate these details
of human depth perception. And all for very little gain.

> It's a tricky business, and I don't claim to
> know all about it, but the basic idea is objects that are coincident in
> projection will image at screen depth, objects that need to pop out will
> have more separation, and infinity will (hopefully) put your eyes in a
> straight ahead no convergence mode. They try to not have anything give you a
> negative convergence, such that your eyes would have to diverge in order to
> fuse the images, which would be uncomfortable.

What about that famous traveling zoom scene in _Goodfellas_? You tend to look
at De Niro and Liotta, but what happens if you decide to look at the
background? How would 3D accommodate the change in convergence? Just lots and
lots of problems. And again, it's all for practically no gain.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> I have a feeling that it might be difficult to drive a car if you have
> vision in one eye only.

There are typically multiple distance cues in any real-world scene. While a
lack of stereo vision would be a disadvantage, there are plenty of people with
only one working eye who drive without any trouble. Reaching for a book on the
seat next to you would be more difficult.

> Also surround sound never fully became popular. Audio CD's are in stereo
> and most music systems play back in stereo. You will still hear the all
> movie sound in stereo.

Audio is way simpler, because you really just have two waveforms that you have
to get to the eardrums. Ironically, most stereo and surround sound in movies
is so artificial that it has no connection to reality, anyway. The movie sound
is nothing like things would sound in real life.

> Like most things 3D is a novelty as we all want to experience something
> different. At the moment it seems to be a sales method to get people to buy
> a 3D TV to replace their current HD TV.

From what I hear, it's difficult to buy a HD TV today _without_ 3D capability.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> Don't you guys think that 3D might be helpful in sports broadcasts?
> Superbowl?

No. It's not helpful in real life. The players are too far away for 3D
perception to be important. The 3D effect would be more impressive for
close-ups, perhaps ... but then you have to be careful, because a long focal
length screws up 3D perception, also, often making it extremely unrealistic.

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Unlikely, since everything is either distant (no 3D) or too
> fast to see easily in 3D close in(?). BTW, I was surprised
> to see the first 3D on cable here was a GOLF game!!!!!!!!
> GOLF?!?!?!?! WEIRD........!!! 8^)

So did it make it any easier to follow the ball?

[Mxsmanic]

Gene E. Bloch writes:

> I recently watched, in 3D, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams", about the
> Paleolithic paintings in the Chauvet cave in France.
>
> It's the first thing I've seen where 3D seems reasonable, but there are
> odd effects from time to time, and moreover I looked at part of it
> later in 2D, and I think that might be quite good enough :-)

Since the paintings are in 2D, what's the use of 3D?

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> What would be useful is to give the viewer a choice of different angles
> from different cameras or have an option of picture in picture to show two
> or more different angles. I'm surprised that this feature is lacking on
> many blu-ray discs. There is plenty of room on a blu-ray disc to add extra
> video.

It has existed for ages on DVD, but how often do you see it used? I think it
would be interesting, but it does erode the control of the director
significantly, and given how much effort directors and DPs put into the main
angle of the movie, I can't imagine them being enthusiastic about doing it all
over again for one or more additional angles.

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:nd5ig7he91gk5p0vm...@4ax.com...

My ears might have once heard a difference. They don't now. And, I don't
fancy myself as an authority on how anyone besides myself should live his
life. Really. I'm just yanking your chain a bit with no harm meant. For
me, when I listen to music alone I revert to my professional mode; it
becomes a work endeavor. I find it hard to give myself over to the music
the way I can, when I'm there with the musicians as they perform. I suppose
that's because I spent the first ten years of my working life in radio
stations and as an engineer in several recording studios. Listening in
those environments becomes regimented and prioritized focussing on technical
flaws in the chain, individual instrument sounds, blend, etc. I don't think
about anything like that at live performances. Its a more free atmosphere
for me. I always tried to hear a band live before recording them in the
studio. Because, in the studio we inevitably tried to capture in the new
material how this band connects to their audience.

Steve King

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:h66ig79vv6uqrdt90...@4ax.com...

> Gary Eickmeier writes:
>
>> I'm not so sure about that. I think the pro cameras will do convergence
>> on
>> the main subject, if desired.
>
> Even if they do, that will only work if you are looking at the main
> subject
> yourself. If you look at anything else in the scene, your natural tendency
> to
> adjust convergence to align what you're looking at won't work, because the
> camera won't be aligned on that.

I guess it would depend on what you wish to appear at screen depth. For
example, if it were a two shot of a couple talking, you might want them at
roughly screen depth. The background would fall further back and anything
they wanted to pop out would have greater separation than the main subject.

>
> I don't think pro cameras do it, though, because then you need a fancy
> system
> to decide how and when to adjust convergence. With human eyes, you don't
> just
> converge on a specific focus plane at a specific distance, you also
> converge
> on a specific spot within that plane, which could be in the center of your
> visual field, or at the sides, or wherever.

Which brings us back to the main topic, which is the little Sony 3D camera
at Best Buy. It actually has a convergence control.. If the object in the
foreground looks like double vision, you turn a control until it converges.
I don't know all of the implications of what it does, but I find it
interesting that even a little amateur camera has it.

Gary Eickmeier

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> Which brings us back to the main topic, which is the little Sony 3D camera
> at Best Buy. It actually has a convergence control.. If the object in the
> foreground looks like double vision, you turn a control until it converges.
> I don't know all of the implications of what it does, but I find it
> interesting that even a little amateur camera has it.

Interesting, but it's going to be awfully awkward to fool around with that
convergence control when you're trying to shoot Johnny's birthday party
hand-held.

[Brian]

I would not call it a little amateur camera as it seems to be more for the
serious photographer than the casual amateur photographer which would be
happy with a simple point and shoot video camera. Sony has always been
generous with features for its cameras.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Maybe the camera can adjust the convergence to what it's focused on.

I wonder if it's possible to control the convergence of a 3D movie during
editing of the video.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
>> What would be useful is to give the viewer a choice of different angles
>> from different cameras or have an option of picture in picture to show two
>> or more different angles. I'm surprised that this feature is lacking on
>> many blu-ray discs. There is plenty of room on a blu-ray disc to add extra
>> video.
>
> It has existed for ages on DVD, but how often do you see it used? I think it
> would be interesting, but it does erode the control of the director
> significantly, and given how much effort directors and DPs put into the main

> angle of the movie, I can't image them being enthusiastic about doing it all

> over again for one or more additional angles.

i was thinking it might be useful more for sport events, documentaries,
music performances etc rather than for movies.
--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

qr5ig7pgmk5283786...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > In general, yes. For casual viewing (as for watching the
> > news while I'm having lunch), the 27" CRT at around 5'
> > does fine - but for "serious" viewing, it's the 42" LCD
> > viewed *on axis* from 5.5', with a *properly placed and
> > EQed* PAIR (only!!!) of very good speakers for the audio
> > (I find "surround sound with sub" systems just directionally
> > confusing and worse-sounding at best).

> Sounds nice, but why not headphones instead of speakers?

I prefer the sound of a *good* set of audio components (including
speakers) properly set up in a *good8 listening environment ("out
there") instead of the closed-in sound of earphones...

> > As an "audio nut", that's why I'm as concerned with sound
> > quality as with the picture quality (about which I'm also
> > a "nut" ;-). I've seen people waste "zillions" putting their
> > expensive BIG-screen TVs W - A - Y over "there", WAY off
> > center, and WAY up there over the fireplace, then strew a
> > multi-channel sound system casually around an acoustically
> > poor room. Bleah....

> I just wear headphones.

I consider this a solution one only for not bothering other people
while I listen - but one that is inferior to the above in almost
every way... The trouble with the above, though, is making *AND
MATCHING/ADJUSTING* the set of components, AND properly treating
the room and placing the sound system in it well. Headphones can
mostly simplify this (with the selection of decent 'phones), but
even the best earphones cannot sonically satisfy the way a good
stereo can, with its good reproduction of instrumental and vocal
sounds, their sizes, and their placements in space - and the
visceral feelings provided by a *really* good subwoofer and a
pair of speakers with exceptionally good transient response...;-)
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> I prefer the sound of a *good* set of audio components (including
> speakers) properly set up in a *good8 listening environment ("out
> there") instead of the closed-in sound of earphones...

But consider this: What if you recorded the original sound with an acoustic
head equipped with multiple ears? That is, a head that has, say, four pairs of
ears, 45° apart, recording eight tracks. Then you put a motion sensor in the
headphones, and use a computer to dynamically mix the eight tracks down to two
as you move your head while listening. Wouldn't that be the ultimate in high
fidelity? As it is, acoustic head recordings are stunningly realistic, which
makes me wonder why they aren't more widely used.

> I consider this a solution one only for not bothering other people
> while I listen - but one that is inferior to the above in almost
> every way... The trouble with the above, though, is making *AND
> MATCHING/ADJUSTING* the set of components, AND properly treating
> the room and placing the sound system in it well. Headphones can
> mostly simplify this (with the selection of decent 'phones), but
> even the best earphones cannot sonically satisfy the way a good
> stereo can, with its good reproduction of instrumental and vocal

> sounds, their sizes, and their placements in space ...

Why not? You only have two ears, so why would you need more than two speakers?

I wear headphones in order to avoid disturbing the neighbors. Really good
headphones are very nice. I used to have a fabulous pair of headphones back in
the days when I had money. I learned from those headphones that I could hear a
lot better than I thought--it wasn't that I couldn't hear higher frequencies,
it was just that most headphones couldn't reproduce them. That was a pleasant
surprise.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Maybe the camera can adjust the convergence to what it's focused on.

What happens when you play it back if you want to look at something other than
what the camera is focused on?

And the focus covers an entire plane, whereas the convergence covers only one
spot on that plane.

> I wonder if it's possible to control the convergence of a 3D movie during
> editing of the video.

Not possible. To change the convergence, you actually have to change the
optical axes of the lenses while filming the original image.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> I would not call it a little amateur camera as it seems to be more for the
> serious photographer than the casual amateur photographer which would be
> happy with a simple point and shoot video camera. Sony has always been
> generous with features for its cameras.

Except progressive scan.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> i was thinking it might be useful more for sport events, documentaries,
> music performances etc rather than for movies.

I tend to agree, but I don't ever recall seeing it used, even for DVDs.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7oojg79dkroubb1rg...@4ax.com...

> Why not? You only have two ears, so why would you need more than two
> speakers?

I don't want to shock you mx, but stereophonic is not a head related system.
Binaural is. Big difference. Long story.

Gary Eickmeier

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

so6ig7pnevehbsris...@4ax.com:

8^)
(Dunno - I don't have a 3D TV and I hate golf...;-)
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

7oojg79dkroubb1rg...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > I prefer the sound of a *good* set of audio components (including

> > speakers) properly set up in a *good* listening environment ("out

> > there") instead of the closed-in sound of earphones...

> But consider this: What if you recorded the original sound with an acoustic
> head equipped with multiple ears? That is, a head that has, say, four pairs of
> ears, 45° apart, recording eight tracks. Then you put a motion sensor in the
> headphones, and use a computer to dynamically mix the eight tracks down to two
> as you move your head while listening. Wouldn't that be the ultimate in high
> fidelity? As it is, acoustic head recordings are stunningly realistic, which
> makes me wonder why they aren't more widely used.

Hey, we could use 8-track cassettes for the recordings! 8^)
There is something to be said for your "system", although I
find earphones uncomfortable for listening very long, and
as a "L - O - W" bass lover, even the mid bass would be
unsatisfactory if heard on earphones (I wanna *FEEL* the
bass! 8^).

> > I consider this a solution one only for not bothering other people
> > while I listen - but one that is inferior to the above in almost
> > every way... The trouble with the above, though, is making *AND
> > MATCHING/ADJUSTING* the set of components, AND properly treating
> > the room and placing the sound system in it well. Headphones can
> > mostly simplify this (with the selection of decent 'phones), but
> > even the best earphones cannot sonically satisfy the way a good
> > stereo can, with its good reproduction of instrumental and vocal
> > sounds, their sizes, and their placements in space ...

> Why not? You only have two ears, so why would you need more than two speakers?

You don't, which has been my point. Two good speakers (plus maybe an
excellent subwoofer) and a good set-up in a suitable space are all that
is needed for top-quality sound.

> I wear headphones in order to avoid disturbing the neighbors.

A good use for them...! ;-) BTW, when my neighbor helped me move
in my very large and heavy speakers, he expressed some concern
about hearing them (he calls the police rather often to complain
about sound coming from a restaurant about half a mile away...). I
had him in and sat him down in the "sweet" spot and set the volume
level to "BLAST" - then (without adjusting the volume level), had
him get up and join me on the porch to find that the audio was
barely audible. Just outside the door, it was inaudible. Why? The
speakers are bipolar-radiating ribbons (electrostatics are similar
in this respect) - the front and reversed-phase rear output
progressively cancel each other as one moves away from on-axis
listening, and at 90 degrees off axis, there is almost no output
(the power response into the room is minimal). For the TV, I use
a pair of EQ'ed small speakers that produce excellent sound for
TV programs and even for concerts at satisfying levels. These are
a bit more audible around the house, but they also cannot be heard
outside the house.

> Really good
> headphones are very nice. I used to have a fabulous pair of headphones back in
> the days when I had money. I learned from those headphones that I could hear a
> lot better than I thought--it wasn't that I couldn't hear higher frequencies,
> it was just that most headphones couldn't reproduce them. That was a pleasant
> surprise.

I know there are very good (and very expensive) earphones, but I
just don't like the experience of listening to music with them...
"Dif-rent strokes", I guess...;-)
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

> I don't want to shock you mx, but stereophonic is not a head related system.
> Binaural is. Big difference. Long story.

And if you wear headphones?

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> A good use for them...! ;-) BTW, when my neighbor helped me move
> in my very large and heavy speakers, he expressed some concern
> about hearing them (he calls the police rather often to complain
> about sound coming from a restaurant about half a mile away...). I
> had him in and sat him down in the "sweet" spot and set the volume
> level to "BLAST" - then (without adjusting the volume level), had
> him get up and join me on the porch to find that the audio was
> barely audible.

And how loud do you set them when you listen to them?

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4rgkg71qvg5afupql...@4ax.com...

Then you are playing stereophonic recordings binaurally. It can be done, but
the results are not systemic. You will hear extreme localization and it will
usually be IHL - In Head Locatedness. This is the weird feeling that the
sounds are very wide and strung between your ears right in your head, rather
than out there in front of you.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/08/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

> Why not? You only have two ears, so why would you need more than two
> speakers?

Because your ears process sound in much more complicated ways than you
seem to realize.

With my two ears, I can tell the approximate azimuth of a person who is
behind me, and I can tell the approximate azimuth and altitude of a
bird in a tree.

Your scheme (which I clipped above) would not reproduce this effect as
well as surround sound speakers do.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/07/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

These are paintings on *cave walls*.

Guess what? The walls aren't flat. Furthermore, the artists 30,000
years ago were clever enough to take advantage of the curved walls to
give relief to their pictures of creatures.