regarding 3d video

[Aston]

Why we have different types of 3d video formats like frame packing, side by side (full/half), line alternative, L+Depth+Graphics, top bottom, etc ??
Who will design all these types and what are the latest ??

[Cornucopia]

Because we have different people in the world who have differing priorities about how to use 3D.

Those who want the highest resolution but don't care about higher framerates would use Framepacking. Those who care about high 3D depth resolution and want high framerates and easy backward-compatibility might use Top/bottom(half). Those who want the most common backward compatible format with full veritical resolution might want SbS (half).
Also depends on at what stage of the production-distribution chain you are talking about, and depends on budgets (& licensing).

Most all of these are already "designed". What do you mean: "what are the latest?". Do you want to know what the future technologies in this area are going to be? That's a BIG QUESTION. Pretending I am a prophet or fortune-teller, I would say h.265 with MVC-like extensions becoming the most common & versatile format, and JIT/On-Demand generation of multi-view (more than just 2 view) display via 2D+Z information. That will help greatly in implementing a viable solution for glasses-free, multi-user 3DTVs.

You seem to have a lot of general questions with no discernable direction. Are you just asking because you want to know, or are you working on some kind of college assignment/project? The kind of info you are asking about takes weeks/months/years to acquire & understand. Don't think you'll find a wikipedia page that'll straighten it all out once and for all...

Scott

[Aston]

Hi Cornucopia,
Thanks for the reply.

Is there any use in line alternative format compared to frame pack ??

[TreeTops]

Isn't 3D dying again? Sales of 3D TV's don't seem to be doing well. I still say it's a fad that seems to happen every generation or so from the 50's on. The new kiddies see it and say WOW, but it soon gets boring. Content is still king.

[Cornucopia]

@TreeTops, why do you keep spouting this "doom & gloom" for 3DTV, when I've already explained that is counter to the facts in other threads. All major CE manufacturers are STILL putting out 3D, even on new year models. It isn't dying. It isn't going to spread to every nook & cranny of content creation like COLOR did, but it will never go away now. Mainly because it has hit critical mass, there is a straightforward and economical workflow, there are popular & economical & non-goofy consumer options, and the technical problems of bygone eras are also bygone.
You still see "3D not doing so well" news articles bandied about, but if you'd notice, most of them are from ~2010. That was when the "hysteria" bubble burst. I welcomed it, because it meant that people could now get back to work and maybe take 3D seriously - which it did.
Yes, content IS king. And some content is BEST presented via 3D. Hugo (2011) and Life of Pi (2012) are prime examples of this. Both won academy awards, and NOT just for technical, whiz-bang work. They are beautiful to watch - more beautiful if you watch them in 3D (I've seen both as both 2D and 3D). Neither of these DWELLS on In-Your-Face elements (though there are a few moments where that does happen in both).
And because the perception can be different in 3D, the aesthetic of what is shown, and how, will change when creators get comfortable with envisioning a creation as a 3D creation from start to finish. Much of what has currently been done used 3D only as an afterthought - would you expect a black & white movie (that was conceived and produced that way and then later colorized) to look as natural and rich and color-savvy as one that started off with someone who designed in color? No. So why bust the balls of these still-early 3D attempts?

I don't know how many 3D movies you've seen, but if you still have that opinion, then clearly you haven't seen all that many. I'm getting close to the 100 mark, and I've seen shit that I never want to see again - whether in 2D or in 3D - and I've seen gems that I've immediately gone out and proselytized about and later added to my collection. Just like in any other medium or technology, it's a TOOL. How you use the tool depends upon your vision, talent & skill.

Scott

[TreeTops]

Well Scott, I have to admit that I haven't seen too many 3D movies lately. Guess I just haven't read all the blogs or news about how good they were doing. Sorry if I sound so pessimistic about 3D. I have lived through too many attempts of those that have tried to make 3D movies but soon failed. Time will tell if I am wrong. I'm really waiting for a good 3D display medium that doesn't require that I wear special glasses. Like holograms maybe? Startrek Holodeck would be even better but I will be dead before that arrives.

[Cornucopia]

(Damn it, lost a whole page-worth of good info. Will have to start over again...)

Granted things have tapered off with 3D production and with TV sales, but this was probably likely to happen anyway. Any time a "fad" makes the transition and graduates to an actual movement, there are bound to be those who were on the money bandwagon solely to "get rich quick" to start jumping onto the next fad. Good riddance. Most of those were poorly done 2D->3D conversion jobs anyway.
Note that most of the current crop of 3D movies in the pipeline are either native-3D shot/rendered or are Very High quality conversions.

Here's a stats breakdown of 3D Features for the last few years:

Year # Features
2003 1.5
2004 3
2005 3.5
2006 7.5
2007 5.5
2008 7.5
2009 23
2010 41
2011 63
2012 47
2013 40*

This is my rough estimate based on a number of sources. The fractional portions are because there may have been a few specialty, shorter-than-feature titles that were popular at IMAX theatres. The "*" is a good estimate of either in-production or finished titles for this year that should already have a ~locked-in show date (so no "backing out" at that point).

2003 is notable as the year of the first modern popular 3D movie, SpyKids3D, followed in 2004 with PolarExpress. After ChickenLittle in 2006 and Avatar in 2009, the floodgates really opened.

*************************

I don't see the problem with wearing glasses, since I already do (or contacts). Putting on 3D specs is just like putting on sunglasses. I guess there may be some people that have an aversion to wearing glasses or sunglasses, but I don't think that fits most people. However, I do understand that glasses-free displays would be much better received by consumers. For that, I expect once economies of scale for continually-evolving technologies will finally make affordable the multi-view (9-25) lenticular-type screens. They are available now in small quantities at huge cost, but that can change. Mainly has to do with computational power (and you know how that keeps improving). I give it, say, ~5-10 years before it can hit mass market status.

Full-color, Projection Holograms are another matter altogether. Unlike Stereo3D, holographic technology is innately and fundamentally different in how you capture (and edit) the image. In fact, it isn't really an "image" at all at that point, just "wavefront points".
Converting to using Holograms would entail a complete re-think and re-tooling of ALL of the vast array of support tools (and industries that provide them), as well as a major retraining of what constitutes a "scene" or "set" before it could ever grow into a major competitor to the current way of working visually. And there are many entrenched parties that want to keep the status quo.

So your guesstimate of "your lifetime" probably isn't that far off. More likely that we would see Star Wars' "Princess Leia" telepresence-videoconferencing with this technology, rather than the Holodeck and full-blown fictional augmented-reality scenarios.

Scott

<edit>Just read this news: my old alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin's Radio-TV-Film department, JUST announced that they are going to be starting a full-blown 3D production program with $2+million startup, entitled "UT3D". They mean business (and as usual, everything they do in Texas is BIGGER!). This tells me that people in the production community see 3D as being worthwhile enough to invest in it for the long haul. I'm more than just a little envious of those students.

[aedipuss]

guess i need to pick up life of pi bluray 3d. saw it in 2d and thought it was just alright. next up on the list the hobbit in 3d.