The London 2012 Olympics: First 3-D Olympics?

Though high-definition 3-D TV sporting events broadcasts is already a technical – and commercial – reality as far back as 2009, will the London 2012 Olympics be the first summer Olympiad to be broadcasted in high-definition 3-D?

By: Ringo Bones

3-D enthusiasts – especially high-definition or HD 3-D enthusiasts – seem barely able to contain their excitement when NBC and Panasonic announced back in July 20, 2012 that they’ll be offering the “infrastructure” to broadcast the London 2012 Olympics in high-definition 3-D. Though HD 3-D broadcasts of top billed sporting events are already a technical – and commercial – reality as far back as 2009, if you can afford to buy one of those top-dollar HD 3-D ready large flat-screen TVs that are more at home in a dedicated home theater set-up than in your typically modest living room, the popularity of broadcasting live events – like top billed sporting events – seems to coincide with the visually stunning success of James Cameron’s 3-D sci-fi epic called Avatar back in 2009. Big league sporting events broadcasters - like ESPN – have billed their HD 3-D broadcasts as “just like being there in the middle of the action” in terms of video quality. But does the reality live up to the hype?

Well, the BBC has a dedicated HD 3-D Olympic channel given that the 2012 summer Olympiad is taking place on their home turf. And so does NBC and ESPN and 22 other that I currently seen so far. On what I’ve seen so far – thanks to our local electronics goods store who used the BBC’s HD 3-D Olympic broadcasts to test out their new batch of large-format HD 3-D ready flat screen TVs. The BBC 3-D broadcasts of the London 2012 opening ceremonies had a nice depth portrayal in them and really make you feel as if you are in the middle of the ceremony – even for a somewhat jaded 3-D movie enthusiast like me. Though, the level of “you-are-there” is only up to a point, given that it is still the main HD 3-D camera’s perspective. Another caveat worth mentioning is the continual swapping to 2-D cameras and the 2-D footage which spoils it a bit.

Given what I’ve seen so far, it seems there is a visually discernable – albeit incrementally - progress in HD 3-D image quality. The HD 3-D London 2012 Olympic broadcasts could be a benchmark of the technical progress made of HD 3-D broadcasts since they became a regular part of atypical up-market satellite dish package back in 2009. The so-called “diorama effect” is now minimal – like swapping from 150 US dollar Mainland Chinese made binoculars to 6,000 US dollar binoculars with Carl Zeiss equipped optics.

Can We Make A 3-D Movie From A 2-D Movie?

It’s not quite easy and it can cost a bit of money and yet an upstart post-production company managed to gain press attention for doing the seemingly impossible back in July, 2011 – will making 3-D movies from 2-D movies be the wave of the future?

By: Ringo Bones

Whether you love them or not, 3-D movies released by big-wig Hollywood movie studios are still a rarity despite of the runaway success of James Cameron’s epic 3-D science fiction extravaganza called Avatar back in 2009. And yet a rather upstart post-production company based in Los Angeles with branches in London and India managed to do the seemingly impossible of converting 2-D movies originally shot with a 2-D camera into a full-fledged 3-D movie. And even managed to gain mainstream press attention as far back as July, 2011.

A post-production company called Prime Focus managed to gain fame after it has successfully done the “impossible” of turning a 2-D movie originally shot with 2-D cameras into a bona-fide 3-D movie as good as one shot with dedicated 3-D movie cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the proprietary process – which has been kept a closely-guarded secret by Prime Focus – of converting 2-D movies into 3-D is no easy feat. It takes on average hundreds of CGI technicians eight months to convert a feature length 2-D movie – which average length of 90-minutes to 2-hours – into a full-fledged 3-D cinematographic masterpiece.

According to Matthew Bristowe of Prime Focus, their proprietary method of converting 2-D to 3-D had first been successfully tried on James Cameron’s 1998 epic remake of Titanic. On converting Titanic to 3-D, “negative reframing” was done to prevent visual artifacts that cause eyestrain to viewers when converting 2-D movies originally shot with 2-D cameras into 3-D. If it becomes commonplace, Prime Focus’ proprietary post-production techniques of converting 2-D movies to 3-D could increase the number of the still limited catalogue of 3-D movies already out on the market today.

Is the World Ready for an X-Rated 3-D Movie?

Even though such “erotica” used to happen only in real-life, but is the world now ready for an X-Rated 3-D movie?

By: Ringo Bones


The world-at-large may be asking why make such an “erotic” art-form given that real-life sex is way much better in comparison to its “reel” 3-D counterpart. Fortunately – or unfortunately, depending your point-of-view – it haven’t deterred a group of film makers from making the first ever 3-D pornography. Believe it or not, 3-D porn already exists as far as NASA’s Manned Lunar Exploration program, as in 1969’s The Stewardesses which became the highest-grossing 3-D movie of all time – porn or otherwise - before James Cameron’s Avatar despite of being shown only in the more libertine regions of the Free World during the height of the Cold War.

Fast forward to the 21st Century, the 3-D porn move that an overwhelming majority of the world’s movie going public has mistaken as the first ever X-Rated 3-D movie that was shown in Taiwan and Hong Kong during the start of April 2011 got so much buzzwords from the established press and “new media” – i.e. Facebook and Twitter – that even the famous American comedian Conan O’Brien had joked about it in his talk-show. Titled “3-D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy”, the plot is based on a classic Chinese erotic novel. Directed by Christopher Sun, the 3-D erotica movie uses the same 3-D cinematographic techniques used in James Cameron’s Avatar.
During a promotional interview of the movie, director Christopher Sun said: “Somehow when you’re doing a 3-D movie, you always want to make an impressive image because the viewers… are going to buy tickets with double or even triple the ticket price to get into a world that you’ve never seen before. Its not just erotica, they want some wow factor!”

The producers of 3-D Sex and Zen are also hoping that the Chinese erotic period drama will prove a titillating hit with the 3-D glasses wearing audiences and help develop a lucrative niche film market. That’s quite a big if given the rather “conservative” film board censors in the rest of Asia will allow an X-Rated 3-D movie to be shown in the 3-D IMAX theaters in their major shopping malls. At least Conan O’Brien is already promoting the first ever 3-D Chinese erotic period drama in America and as of late, it was nicely received in the 2011 Cannes Film Festival as the first ever Chinese erotic period drama shot in 3-D cinematographic techniques.

2010: Year of 3-D?

Though a few years before 3ality’s digital systems’ proprietary 3-D system had manage to make 3-D movies and other 3-D related visual extravaganza popular again, can 2010 be called Year of 3-D?


By: Ringo Bones


Even though Hollywood movie moguls may beg to differ due to 3-D movies’ failure to raise box-office earnings for much of 2010, for those of us closely following 3-D related press releases, it is still valid to conclude that 2010 is the “Year of 3-D”. Back in March 9, 2010, Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks Animation had collaborated with Samsung to use their New York exhibition at the time as a launching pad for their 3-D animated DVDs. Sony also rode the people’s “wave of interest” on anything 3-D at the time due to the runaway success of James Cameron’s Avatar.

Then came last year’s 2010 IFA exhibit which IFA director Jens Heitheker says that will be dominated by everything 3-D. IFA did became a major high-profile platform to promote anything 3-D – make that digital 3-D. From 3-D still and video cameras aimed at consumers. After being fascinated by the myriad of 3-D still and video cameras in the 2010 IFA exhibition, one can be forgiven for not knowing that D.I.Y. 3-D photography – albeit the analog / film-based sort – was already invented 180 years ago and was a rage during the Victorian era, as opposed as a newfangled consumer item in the 2010 IFA. Like Panasonic’s HDC-STD750 3-D capable hand-held stills / video camera which is primarily a 2-D camera with an attachable 3-D lens to make it into a 3-D capable one – though its 1,200 US dollar MSRP makes it only a hand-held 3-D stills / video camera for the well-healed masses.

Then came last year’s 3-D network TV broadcast by ESPN, Virgin Media and Sky which launched their first 3-D TV broadcasts aimed at those already having 3-D capable domestic flat-screen TVs. Unfortunately, 2010 failed to become the year of domestic 3-D TV because high prices and a lack of quality 3-D broadcast content have made domestic 3-D TVs almost stillborn. Add to that the slower-than-average penetration of 3-D capable wide flat-screen TVs in the home because buyers tend to buy new TVs only when their old one gives up the ghost. Those HD-capable wide flat-screen TVs bought 4 to 5 years ago are still going strong. Even my Sony CRT-based 14-incher from 1989 is still alive and kicking, which my current girlfriend jokes that my “Room / Porn TV” is a few years older than her.

So does 2010 pass muster as the “Year of 3-D”? Well, given that most home entertainment technologies launched during an American recession – i.e. Pacific Microsonics’ HDCD and Sony’s Super Bit Mapping system both used to make Redbook CDs sound better (like analog) later became a brisk money-maker and still with us despite being introduced during the Bush Senior era recession. And despite high prevailing unemployment around the world, the steadily rising gains on Wall Street will eventually trickle down to the masses in boost our buying power (we hope) so that we can indulge our curiosity of everything 3-D – in 2011.

Imax for the Home?

Supposedly the best 3-D motion picture format available, will a Blu-Ray based 3-D Imax movie format for domestic use result in a nystagmus-free 3-D movie viewing for the home?


By: Ringo Bones


Claimed as the best 3-D motion picture format yet to provide long-term nystagmus-free viewing – and the results speak for itself - Imax have delighted its share of curious viewers lucky enough to see 15-to-20-minute visual extravaganzas of virtually life-like moving pictures. Even existing Imax theatres’ umbrella-like screens have been used to provide better ”stereopsis” for the latest 3-D movies. Given the current Blu-Ray disc's versatility when it comes to high capacity data storage, will a true Imax move – like multi-channel home theatre - ever become a domestic reality?

Born out of the advances in computer graphics, liquid-crystal technology and extra-wide-format films of the late 1980s, a Canadian company had developed a new technique that makes objects pop out of the screen with unprecedented clarity and brilliance and causes no eyestrain. The new technology called Imax Solido, was created by Imax Systems, the Toronto-based company that makes movies to be shown on screens the size of six-story buildings.

The first Solido film, a largely computer-generated extravaganza called Echoes of the Sun that was co-produced by the Japanese firm Fujitsu, was first shown at the Fujitsu Pavilion at Expo’90, an international fair in Osaka. Showgoers queued up for a chance to park in front of a huge wrap-around screen, strap on a pair of battery-powered goggles and enter a startingly realistic 3-D world.

The goggles are the key to the Solido system. Taking place of the funny cardboard-frame glasses used to watch old-style 3-D movies, the eyewear creates a stereoscopic effect by using lenses filled with liquid-crystal diodes, the same material that forms the numerals on the face of a digital wristwatch. When jolted by an electric current, an LCD lens can instantly switch from being essentially transparent to being totally opaque – like an efficient electronic shutter.

Controlled by an infrared signal broadcasted from the projection booth, the goggles’ left and right lenses open and close 24 times a second, in synchronization with a pair of Imax projectors showing first the left-eye view and then the right-eye view of the scene. The 3-D effect unusually crisp because the projectors are extremely stable, the separation of right-and-left-eye views is precise. And the movie frames are ten times as large as those of a typical 35-mm film.

But it is the wide, umbrella-shaped screen that provides the real breakthrough in Solido. When the brain combines the left-and right-eye images in a conventional 3-D movie, it creates a process known as stereopsis - an artificial three-dimensional space that seems to jut out from the screen. As an object in that space approaches the viewer, it becomes larger and larger. If it gets big enough to reach the outer edges of the picture, however, it will appear to snap back to the plane of the screen, sending conflicting depth cues to the brain and destroying the 3-D illusion.

The advantage of the wraparound Solido theatre is that the edges of the screen are beyond the audience’s field of view. “The screen seems to disappear in the peripheral vision”, says Imax producer Roman Kroitor. “The picture stays right there; you can reach out and touch it”.

Given the current advances in artefact-free digital data compression of visual data, existing DVD Blu-Ray discs can be used to store the large throughput of data required to achieve true Imax viewing in a domestic setting. Our existing Blu-Ray ready home theatre systems will probably need just a minimal upgrade to make it capable of showing true-blue Imax motion pictures at feature film lengths, and hopefully a nystagmus – a rapid involuntary oscillation of the eyeballs as from dizziness – free viewing of 3-D feature films for 2-hours or more.

3-D TV Broadcasts: Desperately Seeking Content?

With 3-D capable high-definition widescreen TVs for domestic use already out on the market since June 2010, will quality content shows shot in 3-D ever be available for broadcast in network TV anytime soon?


By: Ringo Bones


LG, Samsung and Sony had already put out on the market their incarnation of the 3-D capable high-definition widescreen TV for domestic use ever since notable 3-D movies – like James Cameron’s Avatar and Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland had recently become blockbuster successes. But what about 3-D TV broadcasts on network TV? Sadly, none is yet available – but Sky networks recently promised to provide their very first 3-D TV broadcasts by October 2010. Given that the intended demographic for shows shot in 3-D for network TV broadcasts are already weaned on free – but of questionable legality – content on Pirate Bay during the first decade of the 21st Century, will network broadcasted 3-D TV shows ever be economically viable from the TV networks’ perspective?

Early adapters fortunate enough to afford those first-generation of 3-D capable high-definition widescreen TV are already sold on the idea of 3-D movies in the home despite of the minor inconvenience of those cinema-style 3-D viewing goggles. With titles now widely available via 3-D capable Blu-Ray DVDs like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, positive word-of-mouth reviews on 3-D ready hi-def widescreen TVs had become the only excuse for buying one. But will the same people who brought 3-D Blu-Ray DVDs embrace the “potentially” free shows broadcasted on 3-D TV networks?

Given that most of us had been weaned on Napsterization and Pirate Bay style utter disregard to copyright laws when it comes to getting on-demand TV shows for free during the first decade of the 21st Century, TV network executives are probably reluctant to invest into a new “gimmick” of questionable economic viability. Most of us will probably resort to the advertisement-free 3-D shows if it ever becomes available on Internet sites despite of the copyright violations involved. Not to mention the expense of 3-D viewing goggles – which the cheapest ones sell at 10 to 15 US dollars per pair – might be to expensive for some weaned on free stuff from Napster and Pirate Bay.

On the bright side, it could potentially increase the demand for studio stylists and make-up artists given the inherent “vanity” of Hollywood stars who not only wants to look good on high-definition TV broadcasts but also good on 3-D high-definition TV broadcasts. Fashion consultants and make-up artists currently unemployed might find themselves working for big stars - and the odd news presenter and talk-show host - who desperately wants to look good in front of a 3-D capable HDTV in a few months time.

Can Persons with Compromised Vision Still Watch 3-D Movies?

The current resurgence of 3-D movies may be a thrill-a-minute ride to us with “normal” 20/20 vision, but can those with compromised vision still enjoy them?


By: Ringo Bones


The on-going and supposedly still economically-viable-from-the-media-providers’-perspective resurgence of 3-D movies and related on-line visual content may seem like a thrill-a-minute fairground ride for us folks with “normal” 20/20 vision. But are the concerns of those who wear prescription glasses or those with only one eye being set aside on the wayside in our current 3-D boom?

For sometime now, it is recommended that for people who wear prescription glasses, the 3-D viewing goggles can be placed or worn over their specs. It may be an uncomfortable and unwieldy way to watch 3-D at your local cinema – especially since most features last two hours or a bit longer. At present, it seems to be the only practical solution to speck wearers, unless your optometrist can fabricate a pair of 3-D viewing goggles with optical properties matching your prescription eyeglasses.

Another not-so-often-discussed conundrum encountered in 3-D movie viewing is for persons with only one working eye. Though given that those viewers with only one eye defeats the necessity of watching 3-D movies since they physiologically lack the ability of binocular depth perception. It might be safe to assume in the near future that over 90% of movies might be shot in 3-D so suggestions for those viewers with one working eye can be helpful. Unfortunately persons with one eye still have to wear those “unwieldy” 3-D viewing glasses because if they don’t they’ll see a double-image mess since image intended for both left and right eyes are there in the screen unfiltered by the 3-D goggles. Even if they wear the 3-D viewing goggles, they still can’t see the depth and layering as intended by the cinematographer – which is somewhat unfortunate.