Stereoscopic 3D videos

[Matthew]

In almost all cases, stereoscopic 3D videos that are released are in side-by-side format.  In most cases, they are in "Half-SBS" form, which means that the horizontal resolution is halved.

This is a very bad way of doing it.  The proper way of having a video in stereoscopic 3D is to have separate streams for the left and right views.  This can easily be done with "ffmpeg".

All stereoscopic video player software I know of supports playback of videos with dual video streams.  They don't require the user to select the format with such files; they default to left stream first.

If such a video file is played in a player that doesn't support stereoscopic 3D, it will play back the video normally without 3D.  Video players default to the first stream.

Why aren't 3D video files released this way?

[dueda]

First, are there many sources in that way? Then you know the encoders and uploaders, they want something fast and small. 2x half-frame = same usual pixel count.
So I guess that's my guess that may answer your question?

[Matthew]

First, are there many sources in that way?

Blu-ray 3D video is in full 1080p resolution with Multi-view Video Coding.

If video is re-encoded, it should be converted to dual-stream form.

2x half-frame = same usual pixel count.

But the resolution is halved.

Then you know the encoders and uploaders, they want something fast and small.

Playback of side-by-side or over/under stereoscopic videos actually is slower, because the video needs to be transformed when it is played back.

All of today's computers can handle 1080p stereoscopic video.

The size of the video data is determined by the bitrate.

[dueda]

Yep. The idea is the guys encoding and uploading want it small (thus half res) and fast to put up (so the poor options usually win).
You asked "Why aren't 3D video files released this way?" so I guess that's why:

Reducing video quality requires a reassembly and reencoding of frames, a costly CPU task, but reduces file size (and image quality) a lot.
Eliminating multi-view (stereoscopy) isn't that costly as the extra data is just discarded, and that also reduces file size.

I don't know about 3D popularity amongst viewers, but what I saw so far was poor dept effect and lotta headache, plus hated the eyewear (those 3D glasses). Supposing a lot of downloaders watch videos on their PCs and many TVs also don't have 3D, it's natural the release groups don't care much for 3D material. It's a new thing, and immature imo; more hype than bang.

[Matthew]

Stereoscopy is incredible if it's done properly.  It's one of the main aspects of virtual reality.

Most of the 3D movies released so far have been terrible, but there have been a few exceptions.  Final Destination 5's 3D is reasonably good.

I downloaded a torrent of it in 2012.  Last year, I noticed that it appeared to have no seeders, so I have been seeding it.



It is well worth wearing the glasses if the 3D is good.

To get a sense of what good 3D is like: It makes it feel like the display is a "window" into the actual scene, in virtual reality.

Supposing a lot of downloaders watch videos on their PCs and many TVs also don't have 3D, it's natural the release groups don't care much for 3D material.

Stereoscopic videos can be viewed on PCs with 3D monitors, as well as 3D TVs and 3D projectors.  Video games also can be played that way, either by the game natively supporting stereoscopic rendering or with a stereo driver or wrapper.

I've had a 3D monitor for 9 years.  I actually have two of them; the one I'm using now can be used with nVidia 3D Vision.  I have nVidia 3D Vision 2.

It's a new thing, and immature imo; more hype than bang.

It isn't remotely new.  Stereoscopic films have existed for over 100 years.

The first time I saw a 3D movie was in May 2003, when I saw Ghosts of the Abyss in an IMAX 3D theater.  That movie is far more well done in that regard than any mainstream movies I've seen.

[dueda]

I agree with what you say, but there's the cost of replacing hardware and media for 3D versions, better solutions cost even more, and know not of any reasonably affordable home setup that can do the wonders of iMax 3D. Yes, stereophotography, 360º and others have been around longer than cinema itself, but it isn't still ready as a consumer product - mostly because the media companies wanted to release many incomplete (incremental step) versions of video before integrating 3D. And I bet when VR becomes mainstream, the pigs will release a next better thing, like the "all new iPhone XXX" with quantum-matrix entanglement.

[WW3hasstarted]

best ever 3d film is Avatar , most other 3d films ive watched are massivly inferior to the 3d in Avatar