How do they make movies in 3-D?

And, will there ever be a chance in hell that a monocular person (like me), will be able to see one?

For live action, they use two cameras. For computer-generated films, they render each frame twice, once for each eye.

As for monocular viewers, there are things called parallax displays that would work, but require exponentially larger costs for a fractional expansion of the market, meaning probably not happening.

most recent 3d movies are RealdD:

they shoot using two cameras spaced apart and the lens are polarised so that you see the correct image in each eye. The projector alternates left and right images.

Nope, can’t see any way you’ll ever be able to see the 3D effect…

Did you see Avatar? It used the parallax effect a lot, so that some people that have unknowingly lost 3D vision actually saw parts of it as being in 3D.

But I believe the paralax dispays above are talking about something else. You’d need both your own screen and googles. The goggles would send head movement info, and the screen would move as appropriate. It pretty much mimic how 3D works for monocular people in real life.

Here’s a video clip that can kind of show you.

To my uttter astonishment, I found that two 3D movies from the 1950s were directed by people who didn’t have binocular vision – House of Wax and Gog. Andre de Toth (HOW) was blind in one eye (House of Wax (1953) - Trivia - IMDb ) and Herbert L. Strock (GOG) had poor vision in one eye (Gog (1954) - Trivia - IMDb ), and had to have others tell him how well it worked out. Apparently they could figure out what could “make” a good 3D shot.
As for appreciating 3D with one eye, I don’t know how well the Parallqax systems described in this thread work, but I was under the impression that uyou needed binocular vision to appreciate 3D. I suspect that a monocular person would get a good sense of depth from the way a scene changes as you move around it, and see objects shifting relative to objects behind it. Traditional binocular 3D systems won’t really give you this, but a holographic system (which encodes the entire wavefront, not just how it appears to two eyes) would. You might also get it from one of the many 3D systems that have been patented (but not in commercial use) that record the display a scene from multiple viewpoints, rather than simply two. I’ve seen a desoign for lenticular 3D TV that would have worked that way.

If you can’t see 3D in real life, you certainly won’t see it in virtual space.

  1. He can see 3D in real life. “Monocular vision” =/= “two dimensional vision”
  2. There are a number of links in this very thread that show exactly why he *would *be able to see a 3D movie.

The good part is that we only have to pay half price. :wink:

The parallax display system that I saw didn’t require glasses, worked for multiple viewers, and allowed people with monocular vision to see 3d effects. Each “pixel” in the display is actually a lens, and there are hundreds of micropixels under each lens. Because of the lens, the viewing angle of a given pixel changes the color the observer sees.

Are you talking about anything any different from the parallax effects you can see in any movie when the camera moves?

There’s two different things being discussed here: stereo vision, and parallax vision. Both must be combined to give 3D vision similar to what we see in real life.

Stereo vision involves a separate image for each eye. This is what stereograms and current 3D cinema gives you.

But reproduction of accurate parallax vision requires that the perceived images change in response to the location and movement of the viewer’s eyes. 3D movies can’t do this; but in cinemas, you are far enough from the screen and still enough that it usually doesn’t matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYfFzJU_5N8 == one person position at a time design 3-d vision tracker of special film camera. (Possibly in future for every seat location in theater?).

totally digitized model with digitized surfacing, colors, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-3BrBfigEw. For this type, I found far better demonstration at I think a USC lab on YouTube, can’t find it again. But of course, totally digital actors has been talked about before, and won’t become acceptable until 20??

It doesn’t? Please enlighten me, what does monocular vision mean?

My mother and sister can’t see in 3D. I figured he was explaining the same situation for himself.

I believe that Munch means that people with monocular vision can perceive real-world 3d by moving their heads slightly, which does not work for Real3d/IMAX3d.

I am well aware of all that, which is precisely why I was (and still am) puzzled by BigT’s remark.

Well that doesn’t negate my answer.

I think people are confusing the issue by introducing parallax into the argument. A viewer can’t initiate parallax from watching a film, be it 3D or 2D, so it doesn’t apply.

Depth perception is all that matters in a stereoscopic film, and if you can’t perceive that in real life, then it won’t happen for you when watching a stereoscopic 3D film. And that’s that.

For a standard film, you’re correct. However, there are different display technologies which can, indeed, give you the perception of parallax.

I have not heard of such a thing. Unless you’re talking about lenticular displays, and even that is a stretch, I’d really like to see this technology.

See post #9.

Missed the edit window, here’s a cite.