Stereoscopic 3D Video "Spring has Sprung"

[3DMOVIEMAN]

Here is my latest YouTube video, it shows the trees, flowers and plants
springing to life in my home town. It was shot with a Sony HDR-TD10 and
edited with Vegas Movie Studio. If you don't have 3D glasses you can
watch the video in 2D by clicking the "3D" button below the video and turning
the 3D off. There are also options in the 3D menu for various 3D output types
including colored glasses and various 3D monitors. Questions and comments
are welcome.

[TimAndrews]

Thanks for posting it. I am a red/cyan viewer. I thought the shots demonstrated your camera's 3d capability very well. It looks, as you know, many times better in the 1080p than the YouTube default (480p). It is clear the camera does 3d well, in certain conditions. I am not an expect, but thought that some of the shots may be a little overexposed.
It is interesting to see how close objects certainly look 3d, but distant objects (e.g. distant trees and the sky) look like flat images. The human eyes are still better for viewing 3d; and I don't think you can adjust how far the 2 lense are apart.

Although the views were interesting, I would like to see how the 3d works within enclosed areas; e.g building, and whilst you walk with the camera. And what about 'people'. What do they look like in 3d? (Gosh, that sounds sad!)

[Midnight Blue]

Was this a test piece to see how the 3D looked or was it supposed to be a proper video. If it's a test piece I would try a little camera movement and I don't mean like the one near the beginning of the shrub with the over saturated red flowers. I'm told that it brings out the 3D effect better. I don't have 3D glasses so can't say how it looked in 3D. BUT I'm not really your target audience as I have no interest in 3D.

If it's supposed to be a proper video, it didn't work for me. The shots are held for too long. I counted 9 shots including the titles over 142 seconds this averages out to be just over
15 seconds per shot. It was not even cut to the music.

I got the feeling it was just a "look I've got a 3D camera" kind of video. Which after you've tested it a few times will hopefully become I've made a nice video which also happens to be 3D.

Sorry if this seems harsh but I've been cleaning up sick all night so I'm not in the best of moods.

[3DMOVIEMAN]

Thanks Tim & Midnight for taking the time to watch. If your using anaglyph (red/blue) glasses it's best to use the optimized dubois setting in the 3D menu, it will definitely maximize the viewing experience although the reds will be muted.
It's a nature video Tim but maybe soon I will make a video with buildings and people, anything is possible
I get the exact opposite complaint if the shots are too short Midnight, it seems that people want to let their eyes wander around the scenes so I decided to give them ample time to explore the 3D views.

[Midnight Blue]

Well I guess that is part of the art of editing, judging what is long enough but not too long some shots can take it but some shots can't and having a mixture of length of shots will help. I would still say you need to cut on the beet or natural transition of the music. I guess you can't please all of the people all of the time, so long as you please some of the people some of the time that's a win in my book.

I'm much more positive today, no puke to clean up.

[TimAndrews]

This is an interesting area. The long duration of the shots certainly allowed time to look around the 3d. But in 2d; the clip is boring and slow.
I noticed that in the film 'Avatar', watched in 2d, many of the camera angles and scenes looked strange and somehow. I have no doubt they looked perfectly normal in 3d.
Therein lies a problem. How to create videos which suit both 2d and 3d viewers.

[CaptionWorld]

This video made the investment in 3D Glasses well worth the horrendous cost of .79p. Well done! The only thing that spoiled it was Youtube's buffering for 15 secs then playing for 5 secs. Any one else having this problem with 3D?

[vidmanners]

Well, it played OK for me, using Red/green, but I thought the shots rather static, ( although the £D effect does need a longer-scene, as others here have suggested).

The distant images are meant to be flat as the brain has nothing to say otherwise; so they are placed in a flat plane - 3D does rather show-up the processes our brains use to determine distance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I need to replace my TV and wonder still if it should be a 3D-type? . . . partly because it would enable me to see my efforts (eg in experimental vids) . . . I see that Tesco is doing a 40"-er with Samsung 3d BlueRay player for about £500.
/
Any views?

[3DMOVIEMAN]

To Midnight Blue, I think you have to please yourself and hopefully others will appreciate what you've done. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't

To TimAndrews, shot composition is a little different in 3D than it is in 2D, objects coming out of the screen too close to the screen edge cause window violations that break the 3D illusion.
Also with 3D composition it is very important to show depth layers in the scene, so some of the strangeness of Avatar could be Cameron shooting more wide shots
to show off the world & the 3D. Watching a 3D movie in 2D is like watching a technicolor movie in Black & White, your not going to understand what the big deal is.

To CaptionWorld Thanks for watching! I have run into slow loading YouTube videos before, not lately though, when that would occur I would hit pause for a bit and it would clear up the problem.

To vidmanners Thanks for watching!