Kodak Introduces New 3D Display Technology

[John Pytlak RIP]

Just announced today (March 15, 2004):

 

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/US/en/corp/pr...r/headlines.cgi

Ideal System for Gaming, Entertainment and Other Intensive Visualization Tasks

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Mar. 15 -- Eastman Kodak Company today showcased a significant innovation that allows video-game players, earth scientists and a host of others to experience three-dimensional images without glasses or headgear of any type creating the sensation of actually being a part of the image.

 

Kodak will introduce a commercial prototype of its Stereoscopic Imaging Display system at the Exhibitor Show 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada, March 15-17, in Booth #1514 at the Mandalay Bay Exhibition Center. Kodak also plans to demonstrate the Stereoscopic Imaging Display system at the upcoming Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California, March 24-26, in Booth #944 at the San Jose Convention Center.

 

The Stereoscopic Imaging Display system produces a wide field of view, three-dimensional (3D) stereo image. The superior quality of the Kodak system provides an ideal display for intensive visualization tasks, such as oil and gas exploration, molecular and chemical modeling, computer-aided design, entertainment and gaming, and many other applications.

 

The system represents the first initiative from Kodak's New Business Ventures Group, which is responsible for commercializing break-through technology developed by the company's Research & Development organization.

 

"Unlike other 3D imaging systems, which rely on a barrier screen placed over an existing monitor, the Kodak display is an entirely new concept," said Lawrence Henderson, vice president and director, new business ventures, Eastman Kodak Company. "Kodak's Stereoscopic Imaging Display system maintains full image resolution and creates a very wide field of view. The display brings a new level of realism to the 3D visual experience, capitalizing on Kodak's extensive research and development."

 

Kodak is currently seeking partners and early-stage customers for the system, and will provide licenses to the technology for integration into third-party products and systems.

 

How it Works

The user sits in front of a system that creates a virtual image of two high-resolution LCD displays, one for each eye. The user looks into two "floating balls of light" that provide each eye a view of a magnified image of a display. The combination of the wide field of view and virtual image eliminates the sources of eyestrain found in other autostereoscopic systems. Kodak's Stereoscopic Imaging Display system also has a unique viewing zone, which makes it easy to see the "sweet spot" of an image while maintaining image quality across the entire viewing zone.

 

The desktop display has a field of view that measures 45 degrees by 36 degrees, and a resolution of 1280 x 1024 pixels. The user peers through a large, 32 mm viewing pupils that gives the viewer the feeling of floating in a movie theater about 1.5 screen heights away from the screen. Kodak can adjust the scale of this system to increase or reduce the display resolution to meet various applications.

 

The Kodak autostereoscopic display breaks new technical ground in the field of stereo imaging. The unique Ball Lens Technology behind the display is summarized in a paper presented at the 2003 Stereoscopic Displays and Applications conference. This paper is available upon request.

 

Although currently limited to an individual viewer, this technology could foster much more 3D production for the game, science, or adventure film market. :)

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Kodak has taken too long to adjust to the new world of digital. Their new prototype for a 3D computer monitor has a problem and that is that there are already a few of these on the market (from Sharp, NEC) and that Kodak’s 3D display won’t find its way into stores anytime soon.

 

Also note the fact that Spielberg has been messing around with 3D CineAlta, the Spy Kids 3D was shot on CineAlta and the fact that Sony just came out with the new CineAlta SR recorder that feeds, via MPEG4 encoder, from two uncompressed F900's for 3D production.

 

3D without glasses, when developed to its full potential, could mean a revolution in filmmaking.

 

I think that Sharp is already developing a second generation of glassless 3D display and they expect the viewing angle to be widening with each generation.

 

So the history books may teach about the silent era, the talkies, and color pictures, all as a history, with 3D being the present, only to be replaced by something better where you'll feel and smell the action, or will be a part of it, or will decide which way the action will go. Perfected 3D will the beginning of the virtual movies.

 

Then will come the virtual wife, virtual kids, virtual dogs and you'll soon lose track what is real, what is a dream and what is virtual reality.

 

Back to The Future stuff will become a reality and you'll pay to have tour back to the 20th century to have real sex with a real woman, not some Bill Gate's selected Microsoft Playmate that will freeze up on you and you'll have to buy updates every year, only finding out that Bill has a wierd taste in women, but he's monopolized the market and you have no other choice. :P

[Filip Plesha]

Are you sure it's spielberg??

Out of all the people he is the las man i would say he

would use digital cinematography.

He sad himself that he will shoot on film "untill they close the last lab down" (quote)

 

Are you sure it was him?

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Sorry, maybe it was someone else, but I read somewhere some time ago that some well known director takes underwater pictures and is playing with 3D, on CineAlta. I thought that it was Spielberg, but I'm not sure now.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Please try to get your facts right. There's lots of "hype" and name-dropping in some of the articles that are out there. Even worse is when it gets repeated on the Internet user groups, getting even further from the truth as the tale gets retold again and again. Go back to the source, and provide links to your sources.

 

James Cameron used a special 3D CineAlta rig for "Ghosts of the Abyss" and another production about underwater volcanos.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

That's right; it was Cameron. When he started playing with it, he claimed how much he liked it. I wonder if he changed his mind after the initial excitement.

[Filip Plesha]

Yea.Cameron,i heard about that project.

This was the first project that Modern Videofilm (post production house)

used Quantel IQ software on.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Cameron and Lucas. It does not make sense, does it? CineAlta is fine for the lower end independent. Why had these two guys been using it?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Why had these two guys been using it?

 

Good question. :rolleyes:

 

I asked it myself when I saw Yoda and JarJar usually being much sharper than the live action in "Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones", or preferred the "fake" Titanic to the real one. ;)

 

Standard SMPTE 196M specifies a preferred viewing distance of 2 to 4 times the height of the image for screening rooms, but most modern theatres sit people much closer than 2 screen heights. In my experience, the sharpness difference becomes really noticable in that range of 1 to 2 screen heights viewing distance - the fine detail just isn't there, especially in long shots.

[Filip Plesha]

There are a lot of people out there that think,

at whatever viewing distance (or digital resolution) they start to see the

grain,that this is films resolution limit.

 

Actually you can resolve more detail beyond the limit of grainless

image.

 

this is the same reason why some people are happy with Kodak Photo CD

resolution,and some scann film at 8000DPI (which is almost 11K

for a still image of 8 perfs).

 

 

The other day i just got negative scanns from the local photo lab at

3000x2000. There was a picture of a sunset lit road. Everything was underexposed

so that i could get a nice orange sun and flare.

And some parts of the frame looked very grainy on the scann,

but there were some tree branches backlit by the sun,and they were as

sharp as a knife (at 3000x2000),i belive there would be room for

6000x3000 scanning to get more detail out of those parts of the image.

 

The point is,judging by the grain people get fooled.

to test your film,shoot something at extreamly high contrast and then

film reveals its giant resolution capability.

[John Pytlak RIP]

And you can always use a slower film if you have the light, reducing the visibility of the grain even more. Right now, 5245 is the lowest granularity color negative film, with 5212 and 5217 close behind. 5212 is the current sharpness champion, validating your point about sharpess not being masked by the grain structure.

[Mike Brennan]

John,

 

What cameras are available to create content for this device?

 

cheers

 

Mike Brennan

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm not on the project team for the Stereoscopic device. Much of the intial use will be for viewing CGI models and eventually CGI gaming. I suspect that any film or HD source could be used to generate input material, whether it be 35mm film "House of Wax", "Ghosts of the Abyss" or "Spy Kids 3D".

 

Best to go to the trade shows mentioned to see a demo and discuss particulars.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Questions:

 

The 3D displays that need glasses use interlaced material; one scan is right image, next left and so forth. How is it with the glassless systems? Do they use interlaced or progressive material, or can they work with either? How many frames a second?

 

Is there a possibility that the system will in a forseeable future cover wide enough viewing angle to be used in a movie theater? How many years before this happens?

 

Standard SMPTE 196M specifies a preferred viewing distance of 2 to 4 times the height of the image for screening rooms

There are so many factors that affect the optimal viewing distance. Some films look a lot better when viewed at a distance 2x or less of the screen height, others at 4x or more than the height. Add to it improper sound level and equalization adjustment and the optimal distance could be way off the preferred viewing distance. Is this being addressed by the theaters, studios, filmmakers? How?

 

I think that grain, no matter how artistic or appropriate is to the director and DP, is not welcomed to majority of viewers, so are 24 fps motion artifacts. IMAX HD runs at 48 fps. Anyone has an input on the IMAX HD presentation? Is it in your opinion a lot better than 24 fps?

 

When I read the original article about Cameron, he claimed that CineAlta gives him results comparable to 70 mm, which is ridiculous. Anyone knows what is his opinion now?

[Filip Plesha]

I never ever heard anyone complaining about the 24fps speed of films.

I'm talking about common folks,i often like to talk with people that

don't know a thing about cinematography just so see do some things

affect their perception of films.

First of all,majority of them don't even see the difference in motion

between film and 50 half-frame/s video (don't ask me why) .And those who do

(advanced common folks) just think of it as a characteristic of film originated material.

But i never heard anyone complaining about it.

 

The irony is that sometimes 24fps capture is the only thing that makes

some video-films look remotly like film (untill you freeze frame :) )

 

There are allso a lot of times when video is shot with the "slow shutter"

effect just to saturate colors a bit and give it jerky film-like movement.

 

24fps motion gives a lot of character to film images.

People have enjoyed thousands of films by now in cinemas all shot in 24fps,

and i think it worked just fine so far.

(don't quote me by saying "fine" is not good enough,because it's a figure of speech!!!)

 

Imagine watching Saving private ryan at some 60fps

The small shutter angle effect would be ruined.

 

By the way,what is IMAX HD?

 

 

 

And as for film grain.Sometimes people like it,sometimes not.

But the fact is that it is there.You can do some things to avoid it,like

using larger negative area,or using fine grain films.Photographers and

cinematographers have always fought against it,unless they wanted it specificly.

But the bottom line is that grain is not like pixels.Once you start seeing

pixels on screen,you know that you are actually seeing resolution limit.

Film grain that you see on screen is not a bunch of image building blocks,that

represent the image limit. If you magnify the image with a microscope,or

scan it at a very high resolution,you'll see that image can get

grainy as hell and still respond to detail.

That's because you are actually seeing clusters (groupations) of largest

grain particles.These groupations are what you percive as film grain on screen.Smaller particles form smaller clusters,

and can capture finer detail.

That's why the largest grain clusters can fool you into thinking that

they are building blocks of film image.And that is why you can get

more detail if you digitally reduce grain and sharpen the image.But only if done properly (like in Kodak's image tests posted on the web site)

 

It is a bit hard to speak about this because i'm using the term "grain" for

both microscopic grain particles,and visible film grain.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

IMAX film is 24 fps; they also have the IMAX HD, which is projected at double speed, at least that is my understanding.

 

24 fps is OK but if you want to compare it to music, it is the old 78 cm/sec recording, wheras 48 fps would be LP, 60 fps would be CD and 100 fps would be SACD. There is a lot of difference between LP and 78, The difference between 48 and 100 is less pronounced. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

What I noticed here in Europe are a lot of 100 Hz TVs; the less expensive are 50 Hz. Do they digitally double the number of fields? Anyone knows?

 

You have to be careful not to pan too fast, etc. at 24 fps; the higher the fps rate, the faster you can pan. At 100 fps you could probably pan at any speed you want. Coreect me if I'm wrong.

 

I know that someone will object and say that 48 fps looks like video. I say, so what? 30 fps was tried in film in the past but was abandoned due to economic reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It is the DOF control more than anything else that gives 35 mm production a film look, compared to video production.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

You have to be careful not to pan too fast, etc. at 24 fps; the higher the fps rate, the faster you can pan. At 100 fps you could probably pan at any speed you want. Coreect me if I'm wrong.

 

I know that someone will object and say that 48 fps looks like video. I say, so what? 30 fps was tried in film in the past but was abandoned due to economic reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It is the DOF control more than anything else that gives 35 mm production a film look, compared to video production.

Frame rate is the most important part of the "film look." That's why 24p video cameras exist.

 

You have to realize that we are dealing with human visual perception that is learned over a lifetime. Depth of Field is always changing but frame rate is learned by the brain. 24fps is percieved as film, 29.97fps (or 60i fields) is percieved as TV. I don't think faster frame rates in general are percieved as looking like video, unles they are 30fps and your mind says "hey this looks like TV."

 

48fps IMAX looks like film to me but film shot and transferred at 29.97fps has the disturbing earmarks of video.

 

All you need to realize in the whole digital vesus film controversy is the fact that digital is always trying to look like film, not the other way around. I think digital will eventually dominate but only when it is an acceptable immitation of film. Video be it analog or digital is the bastard of all imaging formats that nobody wants and is forceably being beaten into something that can approximate film. Why do you always concentrate on how film will die and never look at the fact that video is trying desperately remake itself in the image of film?

 

The problem I see we may be unwittingly stumbling into is the fact that 1's and 0's are always going to be just that. So what makes one film different from another? Lighting alone can't do it. It's similar to modern digital effects, they all look the same and I wonder if there is any escaping from that.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

48 fps motion looks pretty much like PAL TV; no 24 fps motion artifacts.

 

Film transfered to video looks bad because of the pulldown.

 

The brain gets used to anything. City kids often think that clean country air is wierd or that it smells.

 

Someone gets used to a certain bad sound and then when he goes to buy a new stereo system, chooses speakers that most approximate the sound he is used to, not quality, naturally sounding speakers. The Japanese companies have been taking advantage of this phenomena for decades and instead of making naturally sounding speakers, test various sounds that sound the best to the buyers. That way they can produce cheaper speakers that sell better. 24 fps has a similarity with this phenomena.

 

Just because the brain associates 24 fps with movies does not mean that it is an ideal speed. Why 24 fps was used and not 100 fps? Simple answer - economics.

 

The IMAX HD has an advantage when it comes to moving images artifacts. The advantage is similar to that of TV.

 

Why is IMAX not staying with 24 fps? Because 48 fps is better.

[Filip Plesha]

I think you have a problem with film images,you seem to dislike everything that is today's film standard.

 

 

A man has choices in his life,he can like something or dislike it.

But some people spot a potential in something that they might modify it

for their different tastes.That is wrong.They should either make their

own stuff the way they want it,or just leave it.

I belive you would like if you could force everyone to shoot films

just for your taste,with 100fps and some ultra-mega-definition digital video.

I think only people that worked with film for years and respected it

have the right to change film standards.

Not someone that hated it all the time.

 

And besides,why does your every conversation eventually end

up on the future. today is 17.4.2004. ,not 2020.

 

 

And you are forgeting something. People come to cinemas to see other

peoples films, cinemas don't kidnap people and make them watch films.

If a filmmaker likes 24fps and the moviegoer doesn't ,then the movigoer

should stay at home and watch TV news which are 50 or 60 fields per

second and give the smooth effect of 50 or 60 FPS,or wait for a different film

in IMAX HD or something.

[Filip Plesha]

And one more thing.

People don't see smooth pans with their eyes.

The eye focuses on a single object,and jumps from that object to the next,

so you never get a clean smooth pan.

And your eye never is steady,it has chaotic moves of concentration.

(which is the reason you see dark spots on the junctions of

4 black squares on white paper)

So the jumping of the eye is another reason why 24fps film

creates almost a hypnotic effect on the audience. The 24fps motion

is associated with your natural perception of motion.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

That's fine Filip. I have no problem with 24 fps. I just noted that IMAX HD is 48 fps and wrote my opinon that it is better. And IMAX is film; it is not video. It's perfectly fine for you or anybody else to disagree. There have always been some video people that wanted 24 fps, and there have always been some filmmakers that wanted higher spped. Joe