Advertising and Marketing Departments need to know good Stereoscopic 3D:
In a previous article we had addressed the subject of why an AD Agencie’s creative department needs to know a thing or two about stereoscopic 3D. After all they are responsible for approaching production houses and other freelance professionals (ad film makers and photographers) to produce stereoscopic 3D commercials or short films that directly or indirectly promote a brand.
Recently I came across another “branded” stereoscopic 3d video that is said to have been shot with Canon 5D cameras. Now this did ring alarm bells, because my first thought was about genlock sync. Even though it’s argued that shooting at 50fps or 60 fps (though at 720p) or even taking a snapshot to “sync” the cameras while in video mode would get the sensors to sync up… I still hold reservations on this.
(the side by side version can be seen here: http://vimeo.com/20030629 )
However, after I saw the video above, there were other anomalies that came to light, and in the pure interest of learning, I offer the below (hopefully Constructive) criticisms:
The numbers refer to the observations as they occur over time…
0:00:45 — Pseudo stereo.. watch the chrome railing warped (converted?)
0:00:55 — 3D Graphics at wrong depth – Pseudo stereo effect
0:01:14 — Large positive parallax on the fountains in background. Background semi-out of focus while foreground almost in silhouette. Where does the audience focus on? if foreground is in silhouette, normal tendancy would be for the audience to turn their attention to background elements (which are blurry and can cause headache, compounded with the large positive parallax)
0:01:39 — Non Tracked Graphics? Graphics go into wrong Z depth as camera dollys in.
0:01:49 — Excellent Stereoscopic 3D tracking on Graphic (180 degree Art Deco style)
0:02:13 — How about using Hyper Stereo?: Where’s the depth? at the risk of choosing a Hyper Stereo base, it would be better than having no depth at all. Scene is rather flat.
0:02:17 — Definite Pseudo stereo, an ill-effect of 2D to 3D conversion (was this an automated conversion from 2D to 3D converter “boxes”) I ask due to the fake refraction through wine glass in foreground and also, is that a mirror reflection on the teacup? right image has a double teacup. Or is it an artifact of 2D to 3D conversion?
0:02:21 — Extemely huge neagtive Z parallax on the scene.
0:02:30 — Vertical misalignment of images (noticeable on man’s head and pillows, when viewed in anaglyph mode)
0:03:24– Effect of shooting non genlocked cameras? (pan at start shows side jitter on man). Also extremely large parallax on backgound (man)
0:03:38 – Pseudo stereoscopic 3D – Man’s face flattened with the sky. Buildings at wrong depth.
0:03:39 — Automated 2D to 3D conversion artifact?: Double white shirt sleeve. (automated converter?)
0:03:41 — Inverted stereo on the scene. entire scene needs to be flipped (look at the gold pillars on the green building)
0:03:55 — 2D to 3D conversion artifacts (sofa has a “crease” where first bottom cushion ends, other image does not. When viewed in 3D an “extruded” effect appears. Secondly, mans hand has an artifact in right image.
Again… I emphasize that this quick critique is meant to be for educational purposes only, and in the hope that marketing departments, brand managers, AD agencies, and of course those professionals producing stereoscopic 3D content, keep best practices and the audiences well being in mind.
Watching pseudo stereo, (or reading text on scenes with conflicting depth cues) could or “may” for instance, cause headaches to audiences. This can only be detrimental to the brand or worse, give 3D a bad name in the long run.