January 17, 2008 at 12:54 am #362074
Anyone have any of those Red-Blue 3D glasses?
I have had to watch it through transparent pieces of LEGO, which just isn’t the same.
I made it in AE, using the “3D glasses” effect. I needed two videos of the minifig walking (one for each eye, taken from slightly different positions in relation to where the minifig was). I did this by taking two pictures for every movement of the minifigure, a “left-eye-view” and a “right-eye-view” using the setup shown here:
As you can see, my QC9K base is mounted on two sets of helicopter skis. These slide left and right 1 stud, between the yellow bricks, giving a slightly different view of the minifig. So the shooting process was:
1. Move minifig
2. Take photo with camera in left position
3. Take photo with camera in right position
Then export the frames from SMP, and all the even-numbered frames will be for one eye and the odd-numbered ones will be for the other eye. Run each set through Monkeyjam and import to AE, apply the 3D glasses effect to both videos and it’s done 🙂 .
The animations are a bit bumpy because of all of the camera-moving. Walk cycle isn’t too flash either…
Anyway, comment please 🙂 .January 17, 2008 at 1:38 am #362093
Alright, you’ve got some problems there.
1. Your encoding has ruined your Cyan channel, leaving the right eye with only half an image.
2. Because you’re moving the camera back and forth every frame, you end up with a lot of camera movement.
3. You have put the studs over top of each other, making them impossible to tell apart. When the eyes look at this arrangement, the part of the image that has the baseplate turns 2d because there is no apparent variance in angle.
4. Anaglyph is horrible, even when uncompressed.
I downloaded the separate eyes and took a look at your shot in crosseyed format, so that I wouldn’t be distracted by the usual flaws in Anaglyph. It got rid of the problem with the baseplate, and everything looked quite good. The issues of camera movement were still there, but the images themselves were much better. Your parallax was pretty much right on, and there was no issue of camera tilt or anything in either eye.
There was another thread about 3D brickfilms before, take a look here: http://brickfilms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=245797&January 17, 2008 at 2:01 am #362100
Hmm, ok. I understand about the camera movement and how the baseplate isn’t in 3D. I’m not pretending to be an expert at this, though, I’m just experimenting. I’ll play around with it in AE…
And none of the links to your 3D experiments in that older thread work.January 17, 2008 at 2:02 am #362101
Experimenting is fantastic, I must say.
I’m trying to track down the 3d test animations I did a year or so ago, but I’m having a bit of trouble.January 17, 2008 at 2:08 am #362103
Oh, thanks! I just edited my second post to tell you that 🙂 .January 17, 2008 at 3:50 am #362122
OK, I’ve made two more clips. Both of them have had the “convergence offset” increased from 0 to 9, meaning that the studs on the baseplate should look 3D now. The difference between the clips is the “3D view” mode.
This clip uses the same 3D view mode as the first clip
http://whittleberry.x10hosting.com/Bala … e%20LR.mov
This clip uses a mode called “Balanced Red Blue LR”…It seems to make some difference.
[spoiler=AE Screenshot][/spoiler]January 17, 2008 at 4:16 am #362128
Interesting, though I think you’ve moved the camera too much between the left and right sets of images. The minifig is so far apart that he doesn’t even come close to looking 3D. I admit this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do well with such small models. I’ve made tests like this in the past, but given up since they all turned out looking horrible. However, I’ve had more success experimenting with CGI 3D.January 17, 2008 at 4:29 am #362131
Looks much better, especially the baseplate, but the ghosting of the anaglyph is still pretty bad. You can essentially see through the fig. I really prefer the cross-eyed effect to this, everything is much cleaner. The ghosting seems to be reduced in that second version, but it is still far too bad to be suitable for a film.January 17, 2008 at 6:34 am #362149
“Nick Durron” wrote: Interesting, though I think you’ve moved the camera too much between the left and right sets of images. The minifig is so far apart that he doesn’t even come close to looking 3D.
Hmm….I might try this again then, moving the camera only half a stud. I see what you mean, 1 stud is too far. Ladon, have you found your earlier 3D works yet? I am interested in this cross-eye stuff you were talking about in the thread you provided the link to.January 17, 2008 at 7:47 am #362163
Not yet, I’ll take a closer look later. Seem to be archived somewhere…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.