VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Australia
    Search Comp PM
    I am currently creating an animation for my major and I am attempting to use 3D. However, I have nooooo idea about of how to get it out of After Effects and onto a 3D screen.

    I tried rendering it out as a .mp4 and burning to a DVD to see it that worked, however it had no effect.


    Is there a certain filetype I have to use? Does 3D only work on Bluray disc?

    If it makes a difference, I am using the After Effects Stereoscopic camera to create this. In it I am using Interlaced Upper L lower R, as I am using an Active 3D TV.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Which version of AE are you using?

    I strongly suggest that you do NOT use Interlaced/FieldSequential as your SOURCE files.

    Render, using lossless encoding, either to 2 full-HD-rez independent files or as a double-wide Side-by-Side ("SbS") single file. Then, use either Vegas Pro (v9-13) or Cyberlink PowerDirector (v?11-13Ultimate) to create a stereoscopic project and render via MVC encoding to burn a 3DBD and play in a standard 3DBD settop player. It will do the automatic reformatting/conversion necessary for your Active 3DTV to recognize it and show in FRAMESequential 3D (which is what Active really uses, NOT Field Sequential/Interlaced as you assumed). Note that 3DBD has restrictions as to framerate: if 1080 then use 24p, if 720 then 50p.

    If you don't have access nor intend to purchase access to either of those two apps, you could go the MultiAVCHD, TSMuxer, etc route, but it is a lot more steps involved and doesn't guarantee success.

    Or, if you aren't too picky about 3D resolution, you can always Render from AE as a standard, anamorphically-horizontally-reduced Side-by-Side (aka 3840x1080 squeezed into a 1920x1080 frame), or anamorphically-vertically-reduced Top-and-Bottom ("TaB") (aka 1920x2160 squeezed into a 1920x1080 frame) in HD, using h.264/AVC and author & burn as a "standard 2D" Blu-ray, but then just manually engage the 3D on your TV (which OUGHT to be able to always accept either of these last 2 kinds of inputs).

    If you are really just trying to do a quick tester, and you don't want to devote the time involved in HD work, you could similarly render to squeezed SbS or TaB SD resolution (720x480), encoded to MPEG2 and authored as a "standard 2D" DVD, also manually engaging the 3D.

    3DBD is a particular, specific, officially-sanctioned and formalized format of the Blu-ray family. Thus, there is no true DVD-Forum-sanctioned official 3D-DVD format (although I wish they had gone ahead and used mine or Panasonic's multi-angle-based patent formats - they had a lot of additional benefits). I do understand, however, that DVD's time to shine has quite passed anyway, and 3D in particular requires the extra resolution that HD provides in order to be perceived smoothly.

    I assume when you are using the "stereoscopic camera" that you DO have some kind of Inter-occular (inter-axial) distance appropriate for the viewport, right? A good start is orthoscopic (the standard average distance between the eyes: ~6.5cm).

    Hope that helps, and let us know if you need further assistance,

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 24th Apr 2014 at 01:34.
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Firstly, thanks for the response!

    I'm using After Effects CS6, Version 11.0.0.378.
    my two source files is a scene I have rendered out in 3DS MAX, using two cameras with roughly 6cm apart into two seperate uncompressed .AVI files.
    I actually have access to both of those programs I believe, certainly Sony Vegas, Cyberlink I may have to do some digging for.

    Anywho, after reading your responce you have certainly cleared up my uncertainty with this. I am currently not in possession of 3D Hardware, but I was considering purchasing a 3D Monitor (BenQ XL2411T), the Nvidia 3D Vision Kit and a Blu-ray writer/reader for my PC. Like I said I can't really test this, other than giving it to a friend who owns a 3D TV, however neither of us have a Blu-ray writer, so the only way around this was to render it out a .mvc or .mkv and see if that works.

    I'll get back to you if I have anymore questions, but other than that, Thank-you very much!
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    If neither of you have a Blu-ray writer, your next option down the list is the 3D-on-2Dmedia DVD disc option. I'll assume your friend has a regular DVD player attached to his 3DTV. That should work correctly. I'd suggest the squeezed TaB format, since that would maximize the horizontal rez over the vertical (and for 3D, the horizontal is the important dimension).
    Since it would be SD DVD, you probably should render as 720x576 (4:3 DAR, 59:54 PAR) on top of 720x576 (4:3 DAR, 59:54PAR) for a framesize of 720x1152 (4:6 DAR, 59:54PAR) which you would then squeeze down to standard 720x576 (4:3 DAR, 59:54 combined PAR). Author as a standard 2D DVD.

    If you choose to NOT use your friend, but instead get a 3D monitor and the 3D vision kit, I'd still suggest using separate files or full-sized SbS or TaB, as previously mentioned. Then use the 3DVision player (which is just a lite/streamlined/modified/branded version of Stereoscopic Player). Along with an understanding of the 3D monitor that you get from its manual, you should have no trouble choosing correctly from one of the various 3D output choices.

    Should you just want to do a simple test on a 2D system, one can always get some anaglyph glasses and view it on a 2D monitor, using Stereoscopic Player (though I still would strongly suggest you do NOT encode that way, rather encode full separate or SbS/TaB - you'll thank me later).

    Of those 2 NLE/Authoring apps, PowerDirector might be more consumer-interface-friendly, but Vegas Pro is the more standards-compliant and overall more capable & powerful. In the 3DBD area, however, PowerDirect does have the feature of being able to add 3D menus & subs (which Vegas does not). This feature is unqiue in any consumer app, or any app less than $1000 for that matter. Don't know if you'll need those features though.

    MVC is the "3D" version of AVC (aka h.264), but it is really only usable either as source files in Vegas for editing, as source files in Stereoscopic Player (aka 3DVision player) for playback, or in Vegas, PD, or similar for authoring to 3DBD. Since you won't be going to 3DBD without a Blu-ray writer, that doesn't make as much sense.

    MKV is just a container. I doubt you'll need to make use of that kind. AVI, MOV, or MP4 (all common output options in AE) would probably better serve you.

    Good luck & you are welcome,

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    If like 95% of the new people here when you say "PC" you really mean "laptop", I'd advise you to forget this idea of spending all that money to try to force your probably badly underpowered (CPU wise I mean) laptop to try (and probably fail) to play 3D and just get a 3D TV instead. Here in the US Vizio was selling them for about $520 US over a year ago.

    Unless your CPU is really powerful, you won't be able to play 3D on your "PC". You'll just be wasting your money. Most of the power users here have desktops because laptops are pretty much a joke for what we like to do, but I suppose there is always some chance you might have a laptop powerful enough or maybe you do have a desktop. I just know that most newbies say "PC" and almost always it means "my badly underpowered cheap laptop". I know that as a student almost certainly you won't have anything powerful enough to play 3D. I don't know if you know this, but it is quite possible to render/encode videos on a PC that isn't powerful enough to actually play back the end product, so the fact that you can encode it means nothing.

    Who knows? Maybe I'm way off base here, but I just mention what usually happens to try to save you from a costly mistake.
    Quote Quote