PDA

View Full Version : Panasonic looks to a future in 3D


BigPixolin
01-09-2009, 02:08 AM
Most of today’s media briefings here in Las Vegas have focused on the year we just left behind (how companies performed) and a look ahead at what’s coming to market in the coming year.
So it was interesting when Panasonic’s U.S. boss, Yoshi Yamada, spent a bit of time talking about the company’s belief in 3D technology, both for movies and home televisions. We’ve seen a bit of resurgence in Hollywood’s (and presumably moviegoer’s) interest in 3D movies. Panasonic is banking on the idea that consumers will be interested enough that they’ll actually be willing to buy 3D-capable television sets. Yes, you’d have to sit in your living room, wearing those glasses to get the full effect.

Yamada also introduced a short testimonial by filmmaker James Cameron, who is consulting with Panasonic. Cameron filmed the clip on the set of his new 3D movie, Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(film)), which is due out later this year.

Yamada said Panasonic is working with other major industry players to develop an accepted standard that will allow the technology to go mainstream. Products could hit the market by 2010, he said.








http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/life-tech/uncategorized/2009/01/panasonic-looks-to-a-future-in-3d/

meagane
01-09-2009, 01:12 PM
I just would like to know what happened to that company located in Dresden(germany).
Some years ago they offered a monitor where you could watch in 3D without glasses.
I`ve seen that in action.

That was totaly awesome!

danlefeb
01-09-2009, 01:20 PM
I just would like to know what happened to that company located in Dresden(germany).
Some years ago they offered a monitor where you could watch in 3D without glasses.
I`ve seen that in action.

That was totaly awesome!

I'd heard something about that technology. Can't wait for it to be put into a product capable of public use...and then three or so years later for the price to drop from $10k for a 19" TV! :)

StephanRODRIGUEZ
01-09-2009, 01:46 PM
I've been experiencing that technology about 2 years ago in a supermarket where that 3d TV was playing. I was totally amazed, but after about ten minutes of watching, I had a big headache and my eyes were hurting like never (very tiring).

LW3D
01-09-2009, 03:46 PM
if you interested there is an article about 3D Glasses ... Article also explain some of the 3D tech..

NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=656&type=overview

SheepFactory
01-09-2009, 04:46 PM
It seems to be where the industry is headed.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2009/01/07/ces-2009-sony-teases-with-high-quality-ps3-3d

BigPixolin
01-09-2009, 05:26 PM
One day window cleaners and all sorts of products in commercials will be flying into people living rooms. Looks like 3d will have a huge market.

meats
01-09-2009, 07:03 PM
It's definitely where the industry is headed. I'm excited to start creating, visualizing, and gaming in full 3d. The price to jump in now is pretty high at this point, I guess that is to be expected.

The low end:

Nvidia 3d Vision hardware - $200
Geforce GTX 295 (to push the double frames) - $500
SyncMaster 2233RZ 120 HZ refresh - $400

total = $1,100 us


I saw RealD do a stereoscopic demo of Halo 3 on a 60 foot screen at Siggraph this year, it really blew me away.

robcat2075
01-09-2009, 08:00 PM
I love stereoscopic, I do stereoscopic (you can see a 3D clip in my sig), but I'm doubtful it will ever gain mass consumer enthusiasm:

-all technologies fall short of the 360° viewable "Princess Leia" standard that the audience has been taught, by inaccurate PR, to think is possible.

-Most people are resistant to glasses, no matter how comfortable.

-practical no-glasses displays for multiple persons don't exist.

-No one has come up with good story reasons for 3D. It adds no information that the audience doesn't already infer from conventional 2D.

-A wave of unimpressive, badly done 3D will cause the consumers to dismiss it as a gimmick.

But I'll be curious to see what comes out off all these attempts.

BTW, you can see a 3D movie, playing on a big-screen 3D consumer display, in 3D in my gallery of stereoscopic Siggraph 2005 pictures. (http://www.brilliantisland.com/siggraph2005/index.htm). I don't know how you can get more stereoscopic than that. :drool:

meats
01-09-2009, 08:39 PM
robcat2075 - I'm waiting for a render, and since I disagree with pretty much everything that you wrote, I will respond.

-all technologies fall short of the 360° viewable "Princess Leia" standard that the audience has been taught, by inaccurate PR, to think is possible.

Really?? I would love to meet the person that sits down in front of a screen, put on glasses, and then think they would be able to walk around it. Just because we haven't got to step "ten" doesn't mean we should not go through all the steps first.

-Most people are resistant to glasses, no matter how comfortable.


Of all the 3d movies I've seen, I don't remember even thinking about the glasses on my face while the movies were playing. Of course no glasses would be better, but hey. Got a better tech?


-practical no-glasses displays for multiple persons don't exist.

Have you been to a 3d movie lately? There were multiple people watching at once.

-No one has come up with good story reasons for 3D. It adds no information that the audience doesn't already infer from conventional 2D.

Watch "Beowolf" in 3D and then watch it in 2D and then come back and say that.
The reason the transition will happen is because of movie companies trying to fight piracy.
Of course there will be much crap that is done purely for the 3d effect. People will weed this out. Quality is quality.

A wave of unimpressive, badly done 3D will cause the consumers to dismiss it as a gimmick.

There are many, many, bad movies being created every day and has been since cinema began. Did seeing a bad one cause you to stop seeing movies? Play a bad game and then stop playing all together?



It will be interesting to see where it all leads. I prefer to take a more positive look at it. I love seeing my models in 3d. Even if it's just the crappy anaglyph red and blue glasses for now...

XminusOne
01-09-2009, 09:07 PM
I guess I've never been "into" stereoscopic stuff. I think the last movie I saw in 3d was the one with Michael Jackson in it. Don't remember the name, don't really care, but I remember I wasn't so amazed by it then so I didn't see the attraction in it now. I guess I'm happy as long as the movie has a good story, good animation/acting, etc. 3d glasses turn me off a bit, I don't know though, again, i've never been to one. This just sounds like a way to get people into the theater vs. them waiting for a blu ray disc they can watch on their 70 inch plasma. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

aglick
01-09-2009, 11:55 PM
For those of you who have only experienced 3D viewing using red/blue (anaglyphic) glasses, you need to see the new stereo viewing technologies before dismissing them out-of-hand. And the decade-old IMAX 3D tech is being eclipsed technologically as well.

The emerging generation of 3D cinematic technologies still require the use of lightweight glasses, but the experience is much more elegant -and much more immersive. And as materials and electronics get lighter and smaller, i will wager a bet that 3D glasses of the near future will weigh mere grams.

The color rendition is now very accurate -no more colored glasses (and weird fringy color artifacts), harshly crushed contrast, headaches & disorientation.

The use of polarized lenses or LCD shutter glasses allows interlaced, full color frames to be viewed sequentially -one eye at a time. And the use of the new 120Hz displays & projectors means your brain sees 3D imagery with perfectly smooth motion -and very few motion or color artifacts. Your brain doesn't see any flickering.

When used sparingly to augment the emotion or drama of a particular shot, scene or sequence, the 3D effect is a very powerful story telling tool.

I don't see any chance for a future without stereo 3D viewing in the cinema as well as at home.

It's coming (and sooner than you think) to a screen near you.

muzbee3d
01-10-2009, 01:48 AM
AS long as one has to wear glasses of any type there will be negitave side effects for some people. Messing with peoples vision is a bad idea.
Plus bad 3D gags ( in your face ) always add to the problem.
The current 3D rage is another shot at trying to sell popcorn at higher prices and will just be another flash in the pan until REAL AUTOSTEREO comes to be in 5 to 10 years.http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

Per-Anders
01-10-2009, 02:05 AM
robcat2075 - I'm waiting for a render, and since I disagree with pretty much everything that you wrote, I will respond.
This stuff is just your opinion though. He's talking about generalities of "the public" and from my experience too he's spot on.

Really?? I would love to meet the person that sits down in front of a screen, put on glasses, and then think they would be able to walk around it. Just because we haven't got to step "ten" doesn't mean we should not go through all the steps first.
What he's saying is that people expect to see holographic display in 3d without glasses when they're told about "3d" they expect 3d, not 2.5d. For the general public POV none of this is exciting or new, and it isn't, they've been pushing "3d" at the cinema since the 50's and polarised anaglyph since the 80's. It's never gottan traction.

Of all the 3d movies I've seen, I don't remember even thinking about the glasses on my face while the movies were playing. Of course no glasses would be better, but hey. Got a better tech?
Again this is your personal feeling on the matter. He's not attacking the media that he actively works in, he's just pointing out that this is a problem that people have, and it's true. It hasn't gathered traction even though the tech has been available for many years, one of the reasons is people don't like the glasses thing, they want everything instantly without having to add prosthetics of any sort.

Have you been to a 3d movie lately? There were multiple people watching at once.
I'm sure he's aware of how popular or unpopular they are. Multiple poeple doesn't always equate to a large market share. If the market was that huge then by now it would be flooded/the only market. Again this technology is old, it's had plenty of time to mature, he's only lamenting this fact and giving the reasons for it, there is no need to be so aggressive.

Watch "Beowolf" in 3D and then watch it in 2D and then come back and say that.
The reason the transition will happen is because of movie companies trying to fight piracy.
Of course there will be much crap that is done purely for the 3d effect. People will weed this out. Quality is quality.
I'd agree with him on this, as I think many others would. Look the tech is cool, but right now it's a gimmick, it's not clear if it adds enough to warrant it's pitfalls and expense.

There are many, many, bad movies being created every day and has been since cinema began. Did seeing a bad one cause you to stop seeing movies? Play a bad game and then stop playing all together?
That's being facesious, and isn't the equivalent, anaglyph isn't new technology, it's old that's had plenty of opportunity but is still having difficulty gaining a footing because it's seen as more of an interesting but sometimes tiresome effect without a directly clear purpose or direct reward that makes it worthwhile to many people.

It will be interesting to see where it all leads. I prefer to take a more positive look at it. I love seeing my models in 3d. Even if it's just the crappy anaglyph red and blue glasses for now...
Look, dont' take this the wrong way Meats - but others are allowed opinions, sometimes those are informed, other times not, but there isn't a need to be quite so aggresive. We all want this to succeed and become popular, but it's foolish and out of touch to not acknowledge that the technology faces certain historical sticking points with the general public.

meats
01-10-2009, 03:39 AM
Look, dont' take this the wrong way Meats - but others are allowed opinions, sometimes those are informed, other times not, but there isn't a need to be quite so aggresive. We all want this to succeed and become popular, but it's foolish and out of touch to not acknowledge that the technology faces certain historical sticking points with the general public.

Yeah, we are all allowed opinions, and I gave mine. Thanks for sharing yours. It's what the internet and this site is about. :)

Aggressive? I guess. His post was aggressive one way, mine pushed the other way. Nowhere did I call him names, or even said he was wrong - just that I disagree with him.

Oh, and we are not the general public on this site. This is a website about the field of 3D graphics, art, and visual effects. A field that is very quickly turning turning to stereoscopic output. Like it or not, here it comes.

muzbee3d
01-10-2009, 04:27 AM
A field that is very quickly turning turning to stereoscopic output. Like it or not, here it comes.


Yea well at least the good news is that short of being brain dead its simple to do in CGI. Not so easy for those in live action with all kinds of wacky multi camera rigs ! http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

robcat2075
01-10-2009, 06:25 PM
@ meat: Per-anders pretty much did my response for me.

I did watch Beowulf in 3D. I'm sure it would have been even less enjoyable in 2D. I'd cite Beowulf as an example of 3D movies that will make audiences decide 3D is not a must-see thing. Technically, fine 3D, but it was dumb and the characters looked like zombies.


Here's an experience that tells me civilians just aren't into it:

Every time I try to show something 3D to a group I hand out some glasses and say "put these on so you can see the 3D"

Immediately, people start saying "oh, do we need to put these on?" or "Do we need to look thru THESE?" or "why do we need the glasses?" and "are you sure we need to put these...on???"

And then they start looking around to see that they're not the first to put the glasses on.



3D is great but Ma and Pa Kettle in PossumSquat, Kentucky aren't ready ready for it yet. They are the ones you have to sell 15 million tickets to for your 3D movie to break even.



Quote:
-practical no-glasses displays for multiple persons don't exist.
Have you been to a 3d movie lately? There were multiple people watching at once.

And they had to wear glasses. read closely: practical no-glasses displays for multiple persons don't exist.


Here's the way stereoscopic has been promoted ever since it's been invented:

http://www.stereoscopy.com/database/movies/bwana-devil.jpg

I see things like that in ads today, as if this were some sort of theater in the round experience.

No, the audience doesn't put the glasses on and then expect to be able to walk around the image.

As soon as they put the glasses on, they realize it ain't going to happen.

And the movie itself is like watching something thru the mailslot in your front door.


Movie 3D falls short of audience expectation in the same way that real-world robots fall short of our expectations. We expect C3PO, but all we've got is a Honda bot that can't walk up a flight of stairs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASoCJTYgYB0)

meats
01-10-2009, 07:09 PM
robcat2075 -

Bookmark this thread and let's come back next year and talk about it.

Avatar comes out this year. That should be a good indicator of how well a 3D movie does internationally, even to the not-so-smart people you describe in small town America.

p.s. Do you have any more up to date citation about how the new stereoscopic movies are touting themselves as full walk-around-3d?

cavekid
01-10-2009, 07:47 PM
I read a comment somewhere in reply to the whole issue of the public wanting to see 3d without glasses (which is understandable, sign me up for that too, ...an R2D2 projecting a full 3d colour hologram in my lounge sounds freakin great!:applause:), and not wanting to wear the current 'uncool' ones, ...they said that we don't seem to have a problem wearing sunglasses, ...and if the tech really takes off you could expect some of the sunglasses manufacturers to possibly get on the bandwagon creating fashion based 3d viewing glasses (the polarized glasses themselves are cheap to make so it would come down to frame choices, ...and you know kids with too much disposable income would totally be up for having cool glasses in the cinema). <sigh> yet another overpriced thing to purchase with the popcorn ;)

I have to say, one of the best 3d cinema implimentations I've seen in the past year was U23D, it really did uplift the whole concert experience, even those who were with us that didn't like U2 were buzzing afterwards. The best shots were actually the ones that were wide shots where you had silhouettes of the crowd between you and the performers (great sense of depth and of course the familiar feel of standing in a concert). I know Journey to the Centre of the Earth wasn't exactly a great film and there is no way I would have watched it in 2d, but all the 3d gimmicks aside, the things I did like about it, were when you had basic dialogue scenes, where there was basic foreground, then character set midground (at screen distance) and then background detail, ....it was nice to let your eyes wander around the scene checking things out (I was captivated by the taps in the bathroom scene near the start of the film too, great perspective, ...simple things for simple minds I guess). I know this is because its new, ...its like moving to New York, walking to work for the first time and going "wow, thats the empire state building", a week later you don't notice its there as you're used to it, ...but yeah, at the moment its interesting from a tech point of view.

At the end of the day a story still is at the heart of what we do and 3d is not going to add anything to that (lets face it, most of us have no problem watching something shot on cruddy 8mm black and white stock, if its an amazing story with which we connect). There are enough mindless films that rely on our vfx to hide thin story and bad acting to get butts on seats each summer blockbuster season. Having said that, I am a fan of 3d and am keen to see what develops in the next couple of years, as in the past 3d has been another one of those gimmicks with b-grade films latching onto it to make money, the difference this time is we have big name directors Cameron, Spielberg, Jackson, etc, all wanting to give 3d a try for A-Grade films, ...it will be interesting to see what they come up with. ....and I confess I am a sucker for seeing 3d animated films in 3d, ...so bring on the Toy Story re-releases :applause:

igorstshirts
01-10-2009, 11:56 PM
This is a big gamble in my opinion. It will either save the movie theater industry or be its last nail in the coffin.

The technology is very fitting for animated films or bash 'em smash 'em Marvel flicks but what about films like A River runs through it or The color purple. I think the glasses will detract/distract the viewer and perhaps detach them from what the film is trying to convey. Granted those two films combined over a year probably didn't gross what The Dark Knight did on opening weekend but I still have my doubts.

I like Panasonic and own a 45 inch rear projection 1080i tv/monitor but I would love to see progress in projection units... Like a silent, cool, projector which could produce a 200 inch diagonal screen with like a 5000 wide pixel resolution along with a good contrast ratio and high lumens output... For under a thousand bucks.

It would then be nice if films were available on pay-per-view immediately upon the opening of the film and that would of course pretty much kill the movie theater industry but I believe that is where home television is going.

All of that being said... I've not seen a film with the new 3D technology yet;}

simont
01-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Have any of you guys seen one of the new autostereoscopic displays?

They give a pretty convincing 3D effect with no glasses and work from a reasonable range of viewpoints. Still a bit too expensive for the average consumer, but affordable for commercial/professional use.

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

BTW, I only know about these as one of the companies I do animation work for sells them....

Si.

aglick
01-11-2009, 09:11 PM
I've had the opportunity to see the various autostereoscopic displays as they have been demo'd at SIGGRAPH, NAB, and privately at various other events for the past few years.

While I did get some sense of "3D" when looking at these displays, the effect was quite limited in several ways:

1. There are huge "blind" spots and "in between" spots where the image is distorted and blurry. This includes areas directly 90 degrees and level to the screen.

2. The "3D" view is different, depending on your angle of viewing. -Kind of like a holograph

3. It seems pretty clear that producing content for these displays is "device-specific". Each manufacturer uses a different, proprietary method for generating the 3D image. None were forthright about the entire content production pipeline, but its pretty certain that exiting content cannot be re-purposed, and that current "stereoscopic" shooting, rendering and post production methodologies simply won't generate content that will work with these displays.

Obviously, some type of high-quaility autostereoscopic experience will be the "holy grail" of 3D viewing. But I have a feeling it's a LONG way out.

I'd give odds of seeing this technology in widespread commercial use about the same chances (in the short term) as I would give holographic displays -where the light photons are simply halted in midair for all to see, without the need for some type of physical medium. (think R3D2's holographic projection of priness Leia)

BigPixolin
01-12-2009, 03:15 PM
TV makers seek depth, adding a third dimension
LAS VEGAS - This year, superficial was out at the nation's largest electronics gala. Every exhibitor at the International Consumer Electronics Show, it seemed, wanted to show some depth. Depth as in 3-D, that is.

Home theaters, webcams, live TV and even iPhone-sized screens — nothing escaped the 3-D treatment.

"There's three or more times more 3-D than last year," said Richard Doherty, an analyst with Envisioneering Group.


http://tech.yahoo.com/ (http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090111/ap_on_hi_te/tec_gadget_show3_d)news/ap/20090111/ap_on_hi_te/tec_gadget_show3_d (http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090111/ap_on_hi_te/tec_gadget_show3_d)

robcat2075
01-15-2009, 08:51 PM
p.s. Do you have any more up to date citation about how the new stereoscopic movies are touting themselves as full walk-around-3d?

Here's a recent bit of dumbness from an article in Computer Graphics World, Nov 2008:

Belgian Director Ben Stassen floated the characters in his stereo 3D film Fly Me to the Moon in front of the screen, over the heads of the audience.
I'll bet you a dollar no one saw a character floating over their head.


And take a look at these ads from Phillips:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/philips-introducing-52-inch-1080p-3d-display/ note the helicopter flying out of the screen

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/06/philips-debuts-22-inch-auto-stereoscopic-3d-monitor/ note the playing cards and dice flying out of the screen.

I know someone will say those are ads for displays, not movies, but what do you think people are expecting to watch on their big screen 3D display?

Ad men just can't get away from that "Bwana Devil" poster imagery and haven't figured out any better way to promote 3D.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2009, 08:51 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.