PDA

View Full Version : Vicarious video is 3D


zet
12-16-2007, 06:16 AM
Has anybody noticed this yet?

I got my copy ( 15,--) yesterday here in Holland. Package has same glasses as 10.000 had.

its hard to get the effect though, I ws sitting at my computerscreen playing DVD over and over again to get it, once your "locked in" its really amazing, certainly towards the end within the maze....

Interesting and smart. (you miss 1dimension if you don't buy an actual, fysical copy)

way to go Tool.

Foamy
12-16-2007, 07:38 AM
RIP and UPLOAD PLX

DON IOTAE
12-16-2007, 07:43 AM
lol foamy.

lemonlateralus
12-16-2007, 08:15 AM
well we all have been guilty of buckling under pressure so..:P

Foamy
12-16-2007, 08:38 AM
srsly I cant believe nobody has ripped and uploaded this yet. fuck.

zet
12-16-2007, 08:57 AM
srsly I cant believe nobody has ripped and uploaded this yet. fuck.


huh, its been uploaded since friday. (not by me btw.)

and, I think the 3D effect needs the exact scanlines as the DVD.

i dont want to break any rules here, but the torrent can be found on the pirate bay site.

email me if you want the tracker, i wont post it here, sorry.

and, please buy the DVD.. make those guys richer than they deserve ;-)

zet
12-16-2007, 09:10 AM
I'll probably have to buy this now, just for the 3D!


exactly, smart businessmen, those toolies...

maybe the 3d holds in lower res, but I'm pretty sure any compression will seriously fuck it up. so, you need the uncompressed mp2/vob's that are on the DVD to fully enjoy the effect.

cheers,
hans

praefector
12-16-2007, 09:33 AM
this is good news

i tried it on my comp with the 10k days lenses and couldnt get it to work. if it was in focus, i was missing the outsides of the picture... if i had the whole thing in frame, it was too blurry to see anything

hopefully w/ the dvd on my lcd set i can relax and enjoy it as intended.

Miss.Selfdestruct
12-16-2007, 11:11 AM
I'll probably have to buy this now, just for the 3D!
i wasn't gonna bother buyin it at all but with these news.....fuck it, i'm getting it tuesday


a thought: isn't it about time that visuals for live shows be done in 3d from now on?
3d glasses optional as they're trippy enough already

Dr.Styles
12-16-2007, 02:24 PM
3D glasses + hallucinogens (2C-E / 2C-B / 2C-I etc) = HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Chuck_Of_Wah
12-16-2007, 04:02 PM
For the last fucking time. The lenses are meant for the package, its written on the damn package. Watching the video with the lenses will give you an effect of magnification, not of a 3D effect.

THE VIDEO IS NOT IN 3D.

You can seriously damage your sight if you use the lenses in any other way than suggested on the packing, especially to look at a bright lcd screen.

njm
12-16-2007, 06:00 PM
For the last fucking time. The lenses are meant for the package, its written on the damn package. Watching the video with the lenses will give you an effect of magnification, not of a 3D effect.

THE VIDEO IS NOT IN 3D.

You can seriously damage your sight if you use the lenses in any other way than suggested on the packing, especially to look at a bright lcd screen.

yep!

I mean, do you people understand the concept of stereoscopic photos? Two images that are slightly different when fused are perceived as one 3D image in your brain. It can be done without the glasses.

solidabyss
12-16-2007, 06:27 PM
For the last fucking time. The lenses are meant for the package, its written on the damn package. Watching the video with the lenses will give you an effect of magnification, not of a 3D effect.

THE VIDEO IS NOT IN 3D.

You can seriously damage your sight if you use the lenses in any other way than suggested on the packing, especially to look at a bright lcd screen.

thank you! i dunno what all these idiots think 3-D is

njm
12-16-2007, 10:07 PM
Awesome, so we can do it without the glasses and then we won't damage our eyes. How do you do it without the glasses?

basically you have to divert your eyes so that you get double vision. Then you can merge to of them in your mind and focus on one image to create the 3D effect. This all depends on how big the images are, and how far away your eyes are. I myself cant actually do it, but I have been in tutorials in psychology classes (vision and perception) that dealt with this

It is so much easier with the supplied glasses though

njm
12-16-2007, 11:23 PM
But you just said the glasses were dangerous

nah, Chuck_Of_Wah did.
He said they are dangerous if you watch a tv with them!

parables in the world
12-17-2007, 02:34 AM
or find the real 3d glasses. the ones with the Red and Blue.

Miss.Selfdestruct
12-17-2007, 09:17 AM
lolz

Rolo
12-17-2007, 05:54 PM
or find the real 3d glasses. the ones with the Red and Blue.

Get the ones Foamy has.

tempathy
12-17-2007, 06:27 PM
This video is not in 3D... it has more stereoscopic images in the packaging which is why it came with STEREOSCOPIC GLASSES. If you use these to watch the DVD, you deserve whatever damage happens to your eyes because you're STUPID.

I do not think the video is in 3D for use with actual 3D glasses, either. It has red/blue outlines on somethings but it's more for effect than anything.

The video has been on torrents (and YouTube) since Friday morning...

lemonlateralus
12-17-2007, 06:44 PM
im getting my copy in the morning,cant wait:D what are your impressions?

webaries.com
12-18-2007, 04:11 PM
i have a copy of the night of the living dead in 3d that i bought at target

havent watched it yet, but i did try the glasses with the vicarious dvd
because the video has that slight blue and red hazy separation all around, a hallmark of a 3d image

so...
actually, i flipped the glasses upside down and had the red lens on my left eye and the blue (cyan) lens on the right eye, which was kind of uncomfortable to hold but worked much better. thats just the way it is, some anaglyphs are red/cyan and some are cyan/red.

so yeah, the video is indeed in 3d!

oh i also tried it with the polarized 3d glasses that i had after seeing the nightmare before christmas in 3d in the theatre, but that did not work.

lotus.
12-18-2007, 04:39 PM
I found 3D glasses online for .25 cents but the shipping is $12.00 :(


Or these pimp ones for $7.00 http://www.berezin.com/3d/images/anaglass2.jpg

imaduh
12-18-2007, 04:41 PM
I found 3D glasses online for .25 cents but the shipping is $12.00 :(

I just laughed. Loudly. Out of my mouth, to boot. Ah...sheudenfreude. Shonenfreude? Bitter grapes, same thing.

chonus
12-18-2007, 05:10 PM
I see it in 3D when I watch it on my computer with the glasses. I have to focus it for a second first but then I'm locked in. The ending is pretty intense flying through the flaming fireballs with the 3D effect. Was worried about messing my eyes up but apparently they just fly out of your head in the end anyways.

Rotating_Energy_Field
12-19-2007, 06:33 AM
The OP is actually correct. Slightly. Maybe.

If you watch the video with 3D glasses (not the stereoscopic lenses on the packaging!) you'll notice that the Humanoid in the video is not exactly 3D, but the glasses pierce through that weird blue/red transparent film (skin?) and magnify his internal organs and skeletal structure. It's pretty cool, but the video is certainly not in 3D like some have suggested.

methylblue
12-21-2007, 09:09 AM
I used my imovie to tile the video. It took forever cause my computer is slow but then i had side by side exact images and then when using the glasses or just just letting my eyes adjust, the video looks vividly 3d. I also tried the red/blue glasses and it does kinda work with the blue one on the right. It's just way better without the color distortion of the colored films.

joeburo
12-21-2007, 10:39 AM
I used my imovie to tile the video. It took forever cause my computer is slow but then i had side by side exact images and then when using the glasses or just just letting my eyes adjust, the video looks vividly 3d. I also tried the red/blue glasses and it does kinda work with the blue one on the right. It's just way better without the color distortion of the colored films.

Plz upload to fileshare or similar website. Thank you in advance.

azatoth
12-22-2007, 03:05 AM
I used my imovie to tile the video. It took forever cause my computer is slow but then i had side by side exact images and then when using the glasses or just just letting my eyes adjust, the video looks vividly 3d. I also tried the red/blue glasses and it does kinda work with the blue one on the right. It's just way better without the color distortion of the colored films.

you have no idea how stereoscopic photography works, do you?

ladycommish
12-22-2007, 03:51 PM
steroscopic dvd? not possible, imo. unless they tell you exactly how far away to sit from your unknown/various size tv. I think the glasses are for the artwork? but then again, I have yet to open the DVD.

Nine
12-25-2007, 05:04 PM
yep!

I mean, do you people understand the concept of stereoscopic photos? Two images that are slightly different when fused are perceived as one 3D image in your brain. It can be done without the glasses.

ditto, i couldnt stand the glasses and just trained my eyes to do it on their own, it becomes very easy after a short while.

-Subwise-
12-27-2007, 11:02 AM
Watch the Blue Commentary on one television, Watch the Red Comentary on another television, Mute the commentary, play your Vicarious CD at the same time, then stand at the distance they come into focus with your stereoscopic lenses, and now you've got it. See you AunT.

DeviantDisciple
12-27-2007, 03:09 PM
Hey everybody. let me apologize first off for this being my first post, I know that will effect my creditability. Anyway, I recompiled the Vicarious video into one sequence with the video playing in two clips, both playing simultaneously, to try and create the effect of stereoscopy. The video has to be compiled with the clips being exactly the same size, and both starting at the same time. Now, if you have read about Stereoscopy, and understand how it works, then you will also realize that it doesn't just work after creating that either. The lenses that came with the packaging are made for the specific distance of viewing the images that are provided. So in order to view the video, even when it has 2 clips playing, you must resize the video window, while moving back and forth with the glasses until it comes into focus. After all my work, I can tell you that it is definitely not Stereoscopic 3D imaging that they are using for this video. If you try using the lens without doing what I did, you will most likely damage your eyes in the process.

I used Adobe Premiere to recompile the video with two clips playing in one sequence. I would love to post it somewhere to be viewed, but after recompiling the video it came to be a little over 1.5GB in size. I'm not sure if the size was due to the way I attempted to render it or what, but I had never really used Premiere before and had to wing it.

One thought that came to mind though, is what if you were to use the same colors used in the outlining of video, each color on a different lens? If you notice on the packaging, Mandy and Brandy's tails wrap around the lenses, maybe pointing out to use their colors with the lenses. O GAWD, now I'm just adding to the conspiracy ;-p

As for Subwise's comment, I think hes just trying to get a rise out of everybody. If what he was saying is true, then my compilation would have come out in 3D.

Have A Happy New Year

DC

ladycommish
12-27-2007, 03:30 PM
Watch the Blue Commentary on one television, Watch the Red Comentary on another television, Mute the commentary, play your Vicarious CD at the same time, then stand at the distance they come into focus with your stereoscopic lenses, and now you've got it. See you AunT.

lol

junior
12-27-2007, 04:25 PM
Anyway, I recompiled the Vicarious video into one sequence with the video playing in two clips, both playing simultaneously, to try and create the effect of stereoscopy. The video has to be compiled with the clips being exactly the same size, and both starting at the same time.

I commend you for your effort, but...
You do realize that making 2 clips from the same source just gives you 2 identical clips?
For stereoscopic imagery to work the 2 clips need to have been made from different perspectives, ie. "shot" from 2 slightly different vantage points (like 2 human eyes).
In the case of this video, you would need access to 2 clips that were made differently by the artist. It's not something you can extrapolate from this single source. The CGI artists would have to have used 2 virtual "cameras" to capture their output, and you would need access to both of those clips.

Digital 3D (like Disney is using) utilizes a double speed scan rate (twice as many frames per second as normal material) to put both sources in one clip. Every other frame is meant for the left or right eye. One set of frames contains special horizontal information, and the other does the same with the vertical. The special glasses are one horizontal filter and one vertical filter. They cancel each other out allowing each eye to only see what is intended for it.
This is something that no standard home viewing device is currently capable of reproducing (to my knowledge), though it is on the horizon.
It also causes the naked eye (no glasses) to see a very blurry picture, which is not the case with this video.

DeviantDisciple
12-27-2007, 05:22 PM
I commend you for your effort, but...
You do realize that making 2 clips from the same source just gives you 2 identical clips?
For stereoscopic imagery to work the 2 clips need to have been made from different perspectives, ie. "shot" from 2 slightly different vantage points (like 2 human eyes).
In the case of this video, you would need access to 2 clips that were made differently by the artist. It's not something you can extrapolate from this single source. The CGI artists would have to have used 2 virtual "cameras" to capture their output, and you would need access to both of those clips.

Digital 3D (like Disney is using) utilizes a double speed scan rate (twice as many frames per second as normal material) to put both sources in one clip. Every other frame is meant for the left or right eye. One set of frames contains special horizontal information, and the other does the same with the vertical. The special glasses are one horizontal filter and one vertical filter. They cancel each other out allowing each eye to only see what is intended for it.
This is something that no standard home viewing device is currently capable of reproducing (to my knowledge), though it is on the horizon.
It also causes the naked eye (no glasses) to see a very blurry picture, which is not the case with this video.



My bad, I didn't explain myself very thoroughly. I understood that it needed two different perspectives. I only created it to experiment, and see what it would look like. I created the 2 clips of it in one sequence, so you can view it through the lenses. It's fun looking through them and seeing the clips play together, but it doesn't have any 3 demsional aspects to it.

LetoAtreides
12-28-2007, 06:34 AM
My bad, I didn't explain myself very thoroughly. I understood that it needed two different perspectives. I only created it to experiment, and see what it would look like. I created the 2 clips of it in one sequence, so you can view it through the lenses. It's fun looking through them and seeing the clips play together, but it doesn't have any 3 demsional aspects to it.

That explains everything, and is the reason that this video is NOT 3D. For it to be 3D it would have to have two overlapping images (one red, one blue), that are from DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, to make it actually work. And since none of you apparently want to read my posts elsewhere, I'll post it here, so you guys can stop revelling in your respectives ignorances...

So, I've been reading all these posts about the 3d nature of the Vicarious video, and I still am completely unconvinced as to the validity of the 3d argument. However, there is something going on in the video, and I hope people read this, because I hope to provide the reason.

Now, first let me preface this by saying I am a 3D director/animator/modeller/texture artist and render artist. So, I do now what Adam Jones was trying to acheive, and respect it. So, why does it look this way? The answer is Chromatic Abberation. It is a technique that has very slowly creeping into the 3d field as of late, and I noticed it for what it was when I first saw the image posted on the ToolBand website. So, instead of giving my layman's explaination for it, here's is the Wiki site, which explains it in full. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Abberation

But essentually, it is a real world camrea lens problem, wherein the curve of the lens causes the lightwaves to travel at a different speed toward the edges of the frame, causing a "double image" effect, as well as changing the color of the light itself (as it is moving at a slower speed). This creates a red and blue abberation at each side of the image. In CGI, this is done as a post-proccessing effect, and can be highly exaggerated.

Also, a link to a CG talk (one of the leaders in 3d art forums) thread wherein someone has used it on their image, and shown a link to a Plug-in that was made to acheive the effect.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817&page=13&pp=15
(post #191) and the image that post refers to if it doesnt show up (you might have to be a cg society member for that) http://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ptlensuu3.jpg

Here are a few more images showing chromatic abberation, including one I did using a plugin for photoshop (the picture of adam), and some zoomed in shots of it.

http://media.pluginz.com/?g=1822

http://www.constantcorrosion.com/chrom01.jpg
http://www.constantcorrosion.com/adamjoneschrom1.jpg
http://www.constantcorrosion.com/ada...chromzoom1.jpg
http://www.constantcorrosion.com/ada...chromzoom2.jpg
http://www.constantcorrosion.com/ada...chromzoom3.jpg

Make your own judgements, but I don't believe it's 3D. But, of course I know my words will not dissuade those who wish it to be true, so stick to your beliefs and clutch it like a cornerstone...
(And I'm not trying to tell you that it wont produce a 3D style effect with glasses using certain lens colors, just saying that it is not true 3d, ie, it was not rendered from two seperate cameras, and composited)

So, in summary, it is a good theory, but not viable. It is simply a visual post-production effect (as opposed to a 3d image being a production effect using two offset virtual cameras) that i assume is used to show the "unseen aspects of the universe and the soul". Flame me if you want, but I am about 99% sure I'm correct.

junior
12-28-2007, 02:07 PM
So, in summary, it is a good theory, but not viable. It is simply a visual post-production effect (as opposed to a 3d image being a production effect using two offset virtual cameras) that i assume is used to show the "unseen aspects of the universe and the soul". Flame me if you want, but I am about 99% sure I'm correct.

I'm about 100% sure you are correct.

Akasha
12-29-2007, 08:56 AM
This could very easily have been recorded steroscopically. In maya, the 3D application used to create the video, you could EASILY insert a pair of cameras, set at specific angles and distances from each other, lock them in place in relation to each other then simply end up with two video outputs per scene, each at slightly different angles, then layer them at a 50/50 transparency. That would be a stereocopic image that is pre-combined, no need for two seperate images to be comined by a lense, cos its already been done. So it might not be true stereocopics in that it stands out form the screen, but it could have that "effect", hence why people notice it having more of a sense of depth.

Just an idea, altho im sure long post above is more correct...

webaries.com
12-29-2007, 02:14 PM
i think its fun to experiment with the different types of 3d glasses that we all have as souvenirs from one thing or another, i understand what you're saying about chromatic abberation, and it seems to hold water, but nevertheless, i do feel like the anaglyph glasses give me a different perspective on the visuals, like the fire around the eclipsed sun has more depth and the skin on X seems to give way to seeing internal stuffs but that might just be all it is, fun and nothing more

anyone ever tried the lateralus / fantasia 2000 combo?

waltz46n2
01-04-2008, 11:11 AM
I don't have any 3-D glasses, so I took Saran Wrap and spray-painted one piece red and another piece blue and then draped them over my eyes.

It didn't work.

Bummer!!

waltz46n2
01-04-2008, 11:15 AM
I don't have any 3-D glasses, so I took Saran Wrap and spray-painted one piece red and another piece blue and then draped them over my eyes.

It didn't work.

What you need to do is take 2 coke bottles and cut off the bottoms. Then you will use the concrete dye to dye the glass. This should give you the same effect as the glasses. The paint unfortunatley just covers and blocks and has no transparency.....

Akasha
01-05-2008, 03:56 AM
I don't have any 3-D glasses, so I took Saran Wrap and spray-painted one piece red and another piece blue and then draped them over my eyes.

It didn't work.

ROFLOL. Tool must just scratch their head in amazement sometimes....