All posts by Like Tangents In The Rain

Schneier’s Latest: Liar’s and Outliers

He has modified a chapter in a recent IEEE article:

And this video has a number of interesting thoughts (the comments are interesting as well:

Schneier on Security: How Changing Technology Affects Security

{youtube}hgEQfDV6NnQ{/youtube}

And now this, part of Chapter 17 from Gizmodo:

How to Trust Your Neighbors in a Networked World

Liars and Outliers by Bruce Schneier explains how civil structure continues advancing despite our best efforts.

Society can’t function without trust, and our complex, interconnected, and global society needs a lot of it. We need to be able to trust the people we interact with directly: as we sit next to them on airplanes, eat the food they serve us in the cabin, and get into their taxis when we land. We need to be able to trust the organizations and institutions that make modern society possible: that the airplanes we fly and the cars we ride in are well- made and well-maintained, that the food we buy is safe and their labels truthful, that the laws in the places we live and the places we travel will be enforced fairly. We need to be able to trust all sorts of technological systems: that the ATM network, the phone system, and the Internet will work wherever we are. We need to be able to trust strangers, singly and in organizations, all over the world all the time. We also need to be able to trust indirectly; we need to trust the trust people we don’t already know and systems we don’t yet understand. We need to trust trust.

Making this all work ourselves is impossible. We can’t even begin to personally verify, and then deliberately decide whether or not to trust, the hundreds-thousands?-of people we interact with directly, and the millions of others we interact with indirectly, as we go about our daily lives. That’s just too many, and we’ll never meet them all. And even if we could magically decide to trust the people, we don’t have the expertise to make technical and scientific decisions about trusting things like airplane safety, modern banking, and pharmacology.

Writing about trust, economist Bart Nooteboom said: ” Trust in things or people entails the willingness to submit to the risk that they may fail us, with the expectation that they will not, or the neglect of lack of awareness of that possibility that they might.” Those three are all intertwined: we aren’t willing to risk unless we’re sure in our expectation that the risk is minor, so minor that most of the time we don’t even have to think about it.

That’s the value of societal pressures. They induce compliance with the group norms- that is, cooperation-so we’re able to approximate the intimate trust we have in our friends on a much larger scale. It’s not perfect, of course. The trust we have in actions and systems isn’t as broad or deep as personal trust, but it’s good enough. Societal pressures reduce the scope of defection. In a sense, by trusting societal pressures, we don’t have to do the work of figuring out whether or not to trust individuals.

By inducing cooperation throughout society, societal pressures allow us to relax our guard a little bit. It’s less stressful to live in a world where you trust people. Once you assume people can, in general and with qualifications, be trusted to be fair, nice, altruistic, cooperative, and trustworthy, you can stop expending energy constantly worrying about security. Then, even though you get burned by the occasional exception, your life is still more comfortable if you continue to believe.

We intuitively know this, even if we’ve never analyzed the mechanisms before. But the mechanisms of societal pressure are important. Societal pressures enable society’s doves to thrive, even though there’s a minority of hawks. Societal pressures enable society.

And despite the largest trust gap in our history, it largely works. It’s easy to focus on defection-the crime, the rudeness, the complete mess of the political system in several countries around the world-but the evidence is all around you. Society is still here, alive and ticking. Trust is common, as is fairness, altruism, cooperation, and kindness. People don’t automatically attack strangers or cheat each other. Murders, burglaries, fraud, and so on are rare.

We have a plethora of security systems to deal with the risks that remain. We know how to walk through the streets of our communities. We know how to shop on the Internet. We know how to interact with friends and strangers, whether-and how-to lock our doors at night, and what precautions to take against crime. The very fact that I was able to write and publish this book, and you were able to buy and read it, is a testament to all of our societal pressure systems. We might get it wrong sometimes, but we largely get it right.

At the same time, defection abounds. Defectors in our society have become more powerful, and they’ve learned to evade and sometimes manipulate societal pressures to enable their continued defection. They’ve used the rapid pace of technological change to increase their scope of defection, while society remains unable to implement new societal pressures fast enough in response. Societal pressures fail regularly.

The important thing to remember is this: no security system is perfect. It’s hard to admit in our technologically advanced society that we can’t do something, but in security there are a lot of things we can’t do. This isn’t a reason to live in fear, or even necessarily a cause for concern. This is the normal state of life. It might even be a good thing. Being alive entails risk, and there always will be outliers. Even if you reduced the murder rate to one in a million, three hundred unlucky people in the U.S. would be murdered every year.

These are not technical problems, though societal pressures are filled with those. No, the biggest and most important problems are at the policy level: global climate change, regulation and governance, political process, civil liberties, the social safety net. Historically, group interests either coalesced organically around the people concerned, or were dictated by a government. Today, understanding group interests increasingly involves scientific expertise, or new social constructs stemming from new technologies, or different problems resulting from yet another increase in scale.

Philosopher Sissela Bok wrote: “…trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. When it is damaged the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.” More generally, trust is the key component of social capital, and high-trust societies are better off in many dimensions than low-trust societies. And in the world today, levels of trust vary all over the map-although never down to the level of baboons.

We’re now at a critical juncture in society: we need to implement new societal systems to deal with the new world created by today’s globalizing technologies. It is critical that we understand what societal pressures do and don’t do, why they work and fail, and how scale affects them. If we do, we can continue building trust into our society. If we don’t, the parasites will kill the host.

 

Schneier’s Latest: Liar’s and Outliers

He has modified a chapter in a recent IEEE article:

And this video has a number of interesting thoughts (the comments are interesting as well:

Schneier on Security: How Changing Technology Affects Security

{youtube}hgEQfDV6NnQ{/youtube}

And now this, part of Chapter 17 from Gizmodo:

How to Trust Your Neighbors in a Networked World

Liars and Outliers by Bruce Schneier explains how civil structure continues advancing despite our best efforts.

Society can’t function without trust, and our complex, interconnected, and global society needs a lot of it. We need to be able to trust the people we interact with directly: as we sit next to them on airplanes, eat the food they serve us in the cabin, and get into their taxis when we land. We need to be able to trust the organizations and institutions that make modern society possible: that the airplanes we fly and the cars we ride in are well- made and well-maintained, that the food we buy is safe and their labels truthful, that the laws in the places we live and the places we travel will be enforced fairly. We need to be able to trust all sorts of technological systems: that the ATM network, the phone system, and the Internet will work wherever we are. We need to be able to trust strangers, singly and in organizations, all over the world all the time. We also need to be able to trust indirectly; we need to trust the trust people we don’t already know and systems we don’t yet understand. We need to trust trust.

Making this all work ourselves is impossible. We can’t even begin to personally verify, and then deliberately decide whether or not to trust, the hundreds-thousands?-of people we interact with directly, and the millions of others we interact with indirectly, as we go about our daily lives. That’s just too many, and we’ll never meet them all. And even if we could magically decide to trust the people, we don’t have the expertise to make technical and scientific decisions about trusting things like airplane safety, modern banking, and pharmacology.

Writing about trust, economist Bart Nooteboom said: ” Trust in things or people entails the willingness to submit to the risk that they may fail us, with the expectation that they will not, or the neglect of lack of awareness of that possibility that they might.” Those three are all intertwined: we aren’t willing to risk unless we’re sure in our expectation that the risk is minor, so minor that most of the time we don’t even have to think about it.

That’s the value of societal pressures. They induce compliance with the group norms- that is, cooperation-so we’re able to approximate the intimate trust we have in our friends on a much larger scale. It’s not perfect, of course. The trust we have in actions and systems isn’t as broad or deep as personal trust, but it’s good enough. Societal pressures reduce the scope of defection. In a sense, by trusting societal pressures, we don’t have to do the work of figuring out whether or not to trust individuals.

By inducing cooperation throughout society, societal pressures allow us to relax our guard a little bit. It’s less stressful to live in a world where you trust people. Once you assume people can, in general and with qualifications, be trusted to be fair, nice, altruistic, cooperative, and trustworthy, you can stop expending energy constantly worrying about security. Then, even though you get burned by the occasional exception, your life is still more comfortable if you continue to believe.

We intuitively know this, even if we’ve never analyzed the mechanisms before. But the mechanisms of societal pressure are important. Societal pressures enable society’s doves to thrive, even though there’s a minority of hawks. Societal pressures enable society.

And despite the largest trust gap in our history, it largely works. It’s easy to focus on defection-the crime, the rudeness, the complete mess of the political system in several countries around the world-but the evidence is all around you. Society is still here, alive and ticking. Trust is common, as is fairness, altruism, cooperation, and kindness. People don’t automatically attack strangers or cheat each other. Murders, burglaries, fraud, and so on are rare.

We have a plethora of security systems to deal with the risks that remain. We know how to walk through the streets of our communities. We know how to shop on the Internet. We know how to interact with friends and strangers, whether-and how-to lock our doors at night, and what precautions to take against crime. The very fact that I was able to write and publish this book, and you were able to buy and read it, is a testament to all of our societal pressure systems. We might get it wrong sometimes, but we largely get it right.

At the same time, defection abounds. Defectors in our society have become more powerful, and they’ve learned to evade and sometimes manipulate societal pressures to enable their continued defection. They’ve used the rapid pace of technological change to increase their scope of defection, while society remains unable to implement new societal pressures fast enough in response. Societal pressures fail regularly.

The important thing to remember is this: no security system is perfect. It’s hard to admit in our technologically advanced society that we can’t do something, but in security there are a lot of things we can’t do. This isn’t a reason to live in fear, or even necessarily a cause for concern. This is the normal state of life. It might even be a good thing. Being alive entails risk, and there always will be outliers. Even if you reduced the murder rate to one in a million, three hundred unlucky people in the U.S. would be murdered every year.

These are not technical problems, though societal pressures are filled with those. No, the biggest and most important problems are at the policy level: global climate change, regulation and governance, political process, civil liberties, the social safety net. Historically, group interests either coalesced organically around the people concerned, or were dictated by a government. Today, understanding group interests increasingly involves scientific expertise, or new social constructs stemming from new technologies, or different problems resulting from yet another increase in scale.

Philosopher Sissela Bok wrote: “…trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. When it is damaged the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.” More generally, trust is the key component of social capital, and high-trust societies are better off in many dimensions than low-trust societies. And in the world today, levels of trust vary all over the map-although never down to the level of baboons.

We’re now at a critical juncture in society: we need to implement new societal systems to deal with the new world created by today’s globalizing technologies. It is critical that we understand what societal pressures do and don’t do, why they work and fail, and how scale affects them. If we do, we can continue building trust into our society. If we don’t, the parasites will kill the host.

 

Film Festival Dates and Submission Details

the 3D company, the 3D specialist company in Central London, has released a nice grid of 26 world-wide film festivals and their requirements. Film Festival Dates and Submission Details | THE 3D COMPANY

[Sundance, Berlin Int., South by Southwest (SXSW), Hong Kong Intl., Atlanta, Tribeca, London Int. Doc. Festival, Festival de Cannes, Seattle Int., Nantucket, Edinburgh Int., Moscow Int., Montreal World, Venice Int., Telluride, Toronto, New York, Busan Int., Chicago Int., London, Jakarta Int., Hollywood, Austin, Film Festival of India, Yamagata Int. Doc, British Urban Film Festival]

Film Festival Dates and Submission Details

the 3D company, the 3D specialist company in Central London, has released a nice grid of 26 world-wide film festivals and their requirements. Film Festival Dates and Submission Details | THE 3D COMPANY

[Sundance, Berlin Int., South by Southwest (SXSW), Hong Kong Intl., Atlanta, Tribeca, London Int. Doc. Festival, Festival de Cannes, Seattle Int., Nantucket, Edinburgh Int., Moscow Int., Montreal World, Venice Int., Telluride, Toronto, New York, Busan Int., Chicago Int., London, Jakarta Int., Hollywood, Austin, Film Festival of India, Yamagata Int. Doc, British Urban Film Festival]

Film Festival Dates and Submission Details

the 3D company, the 3D specialist company in Central London, has released a nice grid of 26 world-wide film festivals and their requirements. Film Festival Dates and Submission Details | THE 3D COMPANY

[Sundance, Berlin Int., South by Southwest (SXSW), Hong Kong Intl., Atlanta, Tribeca, London Int. Doc. Festival, Festival de Cannes, Seattle Int., Nantucket, Edinburgh Int., Moscow Int., Montreal World, Venice Int., Telluride, Toronto, New York, Busan Int., Chicago Int., London, Jakarta Int., Hollywood, Austin, Film Festival of India, Yamagata Int. Doc, British Urban Film Festival]

CST 6th Day of Techniques…DCinema

The presumption is that a projector will be delivered, set-up and fit to the screen. But as the woman pointed out, more and more facilities are getting the projector dropped of, the picture is aligned to the screen and everything else is good to go…no colorimetry calibration.

She mentioned that many maintenance contracts lacked this initial colorimetry calibration. The odd part is that many of the maintenance agreements preclude engaging a 3rd party for this calibration.

The installation groups on the panel did point out that they include a yearly calibration.

[Fill in your own comments about DCI and SMPTE specs and how often light obeyed annual rules. How many bulbs are changed in that period of time? Did any of the bulbs get put in off-kilter? How often are higher rated bulbs swapped in to support 3D? Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) – DIGITAL CINEMA SYSTEM SPECIFICATION, VERSION 1.2]

Your author has been hearing this story for 5 years, at least. The first time he heard it, it really struck him as odd since all the systems that he was involved with setting up in the 2002-2006 era were all set up with an expensive spectroradiometer and a skilled operator. The digital world brings a lot of advantages, but in this area there are many things that are not objective.

Perhaps everyone is using the SMPTE DProVe system? DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier

This article is a work-in-progress since it is simple to go to a thousand tangential problem areas from these few facts. There is even talk of a breakthrough on the CNC silver screen problem.

There may be a lot of overtime for the SMPTE Police.

CST 6th Day of Techniques…DCinema

The presumption is that a projector will be delivered, set-up and fit to the screen. But as the woman pointed out, more and more facilities are getting the projector dropped of, the picture is aligned to the screen and everything else is good to go…no colorimetry calibration.

She mentioned that many maintenance contracts lacked this initial colorimetry calibration. The odd part is that many of the maintenance agreements preclude engaging a 3rd party for this calibration.

The installation groups on the panel did point out that they include a yearly calibration.

[Fill in your own comments about DCI and SMPTE specs and how often light obeyed annual rules. How many bulbs are changed in that period of time? Did any of the bulbs get put in off-kilter? How often are higher rated bulbs swapped in to support 3D? Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) – DIGITAL CINEMA SYSTEM SPECIFICATION, VERSION 1.2]

Your author has been hearing this story for 5 years, at least. The first time he heard it, it really struck him as odd since all the systems that he was involved with setting up in the 2002-2006 era were all set up with an expensive spectroradiometer and a skilled operator. The digital world brings a lot of advantages, but in this area there are many things that are not objective.

Perhaps everyone is using the SMPTE DProVe system? DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier

This article is a work-in-progress since it is simple to go to a thousand tangential problem areas from these few facts. There is even talk of a breakthrough on the CNC silver screen problem.

There may be a lot of overtime for the SMPTE Police.

CST 6th Day of Techniques…DCinema

The presumption is that a projector will be delivered, set-up and fit to the screen. But as the woman pointed out, more and more facilities are getting the projector dropped of, the picture is aligned to the screen and everything else is good to go…no colorimetry calibration.

She mentioned that many maintenance contracts lacked this initial colorimetry calibration. The odd part is that many of the maintenance agreements preclude engaging a 3rd party for this calibration.

The installation groups on the panel did point out that they include a yearly calibration.

[Fill in your own comments about DCI and SMPTE specs and how often light obeyed annual rules. How many bulbs are changed in that period of time? Did any of the bulbs get put in off-kilter? How often are higher rated bulbs swapped in to support 3D? Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) – DIGITAL CINEMA SYSTEM SPECIFICATION, VERSION 1.2]

Your author has been hearing this story for 5 years, at least. The first time he heard it, it really struck him as odd since all the systems that he was involved with setting up in the 2002-2006 era were all set up with an expensive spectroradiometer and a skilled operator. The digital world brings a lot of advantages, but in this area there are many things that are not objective.

Perhaps everyone is using the SMPTE DProVe system? DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier

This article is a work-in-progress since it is simple to go to a thousand tangential problem areas from these few facts. There is even talk of a breakthrough on the CNC silver screen problem.

There may be a lot of overtime for the SMPTE Police.

Weekend Distraction…When “uh, over there” Won’t Do

IN-DEPTH PHOTO ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPOSED RQ-170 SENTINEL DRONE IN IRANIAN HANDS | aviationintel

HOW THE RQ-170 SENTINEL DRONE COULD HAVE FALLEN 50,000+ FEET AND SURVIVED RELATIVELY INTACT | aviationintel

More Photo Evidence Is Found Confirming The Authenticity Of Iran’s RQ-170 Sentinel Claim | aviationintel

Schneier on Security: U.S. Drones Have a Computer Virus

DCinemaTools did report on the massive military breakin a couple years ago, vectored with a USB key into a secure network…with the idea that, “Gee, I wonder if that could happen to a cinema network?” This is the latest on that story.

Schneier on Security: Investigative Report on “Buckshot Yankee”
Original Articles:
Infected USB caused biggest US military breach ever
More Military Systems Hacked

 

Link for Washington Post article mentioned in Schneier “Buckshot Yankee” article:
Cyber-intruder sparks response, debate – The Washington Post

Weekend Distraction…When “uh, over there” Won’t Do

IN-DEPTH PHOTO ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPOSED RQ-170 SENTINEL DRONE IN IRANIAN HANDS | aviationintel

HOW THE RQ-170 SENTINEL DRONE COULD HAVE FALLEN 50,000+ FEET AND SURVIVED RELATIVELY INTACT | aviationintel

More Photo Evidence Is Found Confirming The Authenticity Of Iran’s RQ-170 Sentinel Claim | aviationintel

Schneier on Security: U.S. Drones Have a Computer Virus

DCinemaTools did report on the massive military breakin a couple years ago, vectored with a USB key into a secure network…with the idea that, “Gee, I wonder if that could happen to a cinema network?” This is the latest on that story.

Schneier on Security: Investigative Report on “Buckshot Yankee”
Original Articles:
Infected USB caused biggest US military breach ever
More Military Systems Hacked

 

Link for Washington Post article mentioned in Schneier “Buckshot Yankee” article:
Cyber-intruder sparks response, debate – The Washington Post

“Native” 3D v 2D to 3D Conversions: Pros and Cons

2D to 3D conversion is the process of converting films from 2D (normal film) to stereoscopic 3D (sometimes called S3D) film for viewing with a stereographic viewing systems such as anaglyph (red/blue), polarized and shuttered glasses or using a special lenticular (or other ‘glasses free’ autostereoscopic) screen.

A good conversion is labour intensive and it requires an experienced eye because the process is one part science, one part art. The best analogy is making a suit of clothes – anyone can cut and sew material but you need a good, bespoke tailor to produce something that looks really great.

Film that is converted well is indistinguishable from film that is shot in stereo or “native” 3D and it is an open secret that most – if not all – 3D films contain converted material whether or not it is acknowledged. By way of example, James Cameron has always been coy about whether Avatar contained converted material but his collaborators have been more forthcoming. In fact, it is increasingly not a discussion about WHETHER to convert or shoot, but HOW MUCH to convert; when locking down a 3D budget. Avatar, Pirates of the Caribbean, Judge Dredd, John Tucker, Transformers Dark of The Moon… they have all included conversion material – and for the latter three it has been at least 50% of the content.

One of the reasons most 3D films contain converted material is that shooting in stereo usually means that there is loads of footage to correct in post-production and often the easiest and best solution is to simply convert. Also, converting film well allows for much greater creative and production flexibility; whilst being a lot less expensive.

CONVERSIONversusSHOOTING STEREO OR “NATIVE” 3D
Some people are prejudice in favour of “native” 3D and believe that is superior to conversion in every way which – as with most prejudices – is not true. Clash of the Titans is always cited as a film that justifies the prejudice but it’s a misleading example because no one claims it is a good example of conversion. The latest Transformers is a better example because it contains native and converted footage in the same film, and often it is intercut seamlessly.

Before going through a list of pros and cons, here’s an anecdote that neatly illustrates the fact that most people have no idea what they are watching – the viewing public just like good 3D.

In 2011, we went to BAFTA to watch a preview of a 3D movie with plenty of sword play. The director was well-known and declared his love for 3D movies telling the assembled industry professional that he would only make movies shot in native 3D because conversions were a terrible abomination that could never produce anything of quality.

Having made his impassioned speech, the eminent director sat down and the preview began. The 3D looked excellent and received a rousing ovation as well as many favourable comments from the assembled directors, producers, heads of vfx and post-productions during the Q&A that followed.

Our team was smiling from ear to ear with quiet satisfaction because we knew that the preview had been almost 100% converted. There had been so many problems in post-production that in desperation one of our team had been recalled from his holiday to supervise a conversion team.

Everyone was happy and no one had been any the wiser, especially not the director who had left his film in the tender care of the post-production team.

Whether shooting in 3D or converting later, a different approach to 2D is required and the key to getting the best results is to plan how 3D can be used for best effect. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo 3D is an obvious example of a film that has been shot to maximize the 3D experience.

{youtube}qKs5V_Sp1_0?fs=1&#038{/youtube}

Usually, the best approach is to use both processes and currently this is how most productions are planned. Here’s a guide to help you form those decisions:

Shooting in stereo – as a rough guide allow 30-50% increase on a 2D budget (which is why most films mix and match with conversion which costs 5-10%)

PROS
1. Easier to capture nuances of complex 3D scenes such as crowds, rain, snow, leaves, smoke, reflections, rain, leaves, etc.
2. Preview stereo images on set and on location
3. In edit, footage can be reviewed in stereo making editing decisions easier

CONS
A. Cost: it’s more expensive to shoot in 3D because it requires specialised equipment and personnel (and involves more time)… plus twice the amount of data to manage, wrangle and archive.

B. Specialised camera rigs are required and they are bulky

C. Specialised rig technicians required

D. 2 digital cameras are required which further increases the bulk

E. More set-up time (cost and convenience) and less set-ups accomplishable, per day

F. Lens choices are restricted. For example, long zooms don’t work on a rig because the image is flattened and the 3D effect is lost, plus zooms can be tricky to align correctly

G. Depth is essentially locked-in. It cannot be changed greatly in post. The only way to change depth (as it is really a factor of the interaxial distance) in any meaningful way, is to convert one eye.

H. No guarantee that what is viewed on set will translate to the scene (see BAFTA anecdote above)

I. No option of using 35mm film (unless we go back in time to the Friday the 13th dual camera 35mm solution, or similar – and anyway, 35mm grain, flicker, natural degradation when presented multiple times and it’s inherent expense, is not really ideal!)

J. Non-parallel rigs require a convergence puller on set who determines the convergence points during filming. In edit, it is vital to have the correct convergence point and yet the scope for changing convergence in post is limited.

K. Each camera can and will see colours, lens flares differently which must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

L. Frequently the alignment will be different and this must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

M. Polarisation will mean that there are image differences when filming reflective surfaces

N. VFX requires more work and longer render times. Simple things like rig removals can become very complicated and time consuming (as they discovered on Resident Evil, where what was expected to take a day, was taking a week, or two!).

Stereo Conversion – as a rough guide allow 5-10% increase on a 2D budget

PROS
i. Cost: it’s cheaper

ii. Shoot as normal but plan for 3D to maximize the effect

iii. Complete range of options. Can shoot on film (see latest Star Trek) with any film camera or use any digital camera

iv. Complete range of camera lenses

v. Complete flexibility to add depth even when using telephoto lenses

vi. In edit, complete flexibility to set the convergence

vii. In post, complete flexibility to set the depth and volume for each and every element in each and every scene.

viii. In post, complete flexibility to add or delete elements

ix. VFX is as per usual

Stereo Conversion – CONS
a. Crowds, rain, snow and smoke, sparks are more difficult to convert, but certainly not impossible.

There is a huge range in quality and price so it is important to choose a good company offering sensible prices, who have a great reel.

Originally posted at The 3D Company: “Native” 3D versus 2D to 3D conversion: Pros and Cons | THE 3D COMPANY

“Native” 3D v 2D to 3D Conversions: Pros and Cons

2D to 3D conversion is the process of converting films from 2D (normal film) to stereoscopic 3D (sometimes called S3D) film for viewing with a stereographic viewing systems such as anaglyph (red/blue), polarized and shuttered glasses or using a special lenticular (or other ‘glasses free’ autostereoscopic) screen.

A good conversion is labour intensive and it requires an experienced eye because the process is one part science, one part art. The best analogy is making a suit of clothes – anyone can cut and sew material but you need a good, bespoke tailor to produce something that looks really great.

Film that is converted well is indistinguishable from film that is shot in stereo or “native” 3D and it is an open secret that most – if not all – 3D films contain converted material whether or not it is acknowledged. By way of example, James Cameron has always been coy about whether Avatar contained converted material but his collaborators have been more forthcoming. In fact, it is increasingly not a discussion about WHETHER to convert or shoot, but HOW MUCH to convert; when locking down a 3D budget. Avatar, Pirates of the Caribbean, Judge Dredd, John Tucker, Transformers Dark of The Moon… they have all included conversion material – and for the latter three it has been at least 50% of the content.

One of the reasons most 3D films contain converted material is that shooting in stereo usually means that there is loads of footage to correct in post-production and often the easiest and best solution is to simply convert. Also, converting film well allows for much greater creative and production flexibility; whilst being a lot less expensive.

CONVERSIONversusSHOOTING STEREO OR “NATIVE” 3D
Some people are prejudice in favour of “native” 3D and believe that is superior to conversion in every way which – as with most prejudices – is not true. Clash of the Titans is always cited as a film that justifies the prejudice but it’s a misleading example because no one claims it is a good example of conversion. The latest Transformers is a better example because it contains native and converted footage in the same film, and often it is intercut seamlessly.

Before going through a list of pros and cons, here’s an anecdote that neatly illustrates the fact that most people have no idea what they are watching – the viewing public just like good 3D.

In 2011, we went to BAFTA to watch a preview of a 3D movie with plenty of sword play. The director was well-known and declared his love for 3D movies telling the assembled industry professional that he would only make movies shot in native 3D because conversions were a terrible abomination that could never produce anything of quality.

Having made his impassioned speech, the eminent director sat down and the preview began. The 3D looked excellent and received a rousing ovation as well as many favourable comments from the assembled directors, producers, heads of vfx and post-productions during the Q&A that followed.

Our team was smiling from ear to ear with quiet satisfaction because we knew that the preview had been almost 100% converted. There had been so many problems in post-production that in desperation one of our team had been recalled from his holiday to supervise a conversion team.

Everyone was happy and no one had been any the wiser, especially not the director who had left his film in the tender care of the post-production team.

Whether shooting in 3D or converting later, a different approach to 2D is required and the key to getting the best results is to plan how 3D can be used for best effect. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo 3D is an obvious example of a film that has been shot to maximize the 3D experience.

{youtube}qKs5V_Sp1_0?fs=1&#038{/youtube}

Usually, the best approach is to use both processes and currently this is how most productions are planned. Here’s a guide to help you form those decisions:

Shooting in stereo – as a rough guide allow 30-50% increase on a 2D budget (which is why most films mix and match with conversion which costs 5-10%)

PROS
1. Easier to capture nuances of complex 3D scenes such as crowds, rain, snow, leaves, smoke, reflections, rain, leaves, etc.
2. Preview stereo images on set and on location
3. In edit, footage can be reviewed in stereo making editing decisions easier

CONS
A. Cost: it’s more expensive to shoot in 3D because it requires specialised equipment and personnel (and involves more time)… plus twice the amount of data to manage, wrangle and archive.

B. Specialised camera rigs are required and they are bulky

C. Specialised rig technicians required

D. 2 digital cameras are required which further increases the bulk

E. More set-up time (cost and convenience) and less set-ups accomplishable, per day

F. Lens choices are restricted. For example, long zooms don’t work on a rig because the image is flattened and the 3D effect is lost, plus zooms can be tricky to align correctly

G. Depth is essentially locked-in. It cannot be changed greatly in post. The only way to change depth (as it is really a factor of the interaxial distance) in any meaningful way, is to convert one eye.

H. No guarantee that what is viewed on set will translate to the scene (see BAFTA anecdote above)

I. No option of using 35mm film (unless we go back in time to the Friday the 13th dual camera 35mm solution, or similar – and anyway, 35mm grain, flicker, natural degradation when presented multiple times and it’s inherent expense, is not really ideal!)

J. Non-parallel rigs require a convergence puller on set who determines the convergence points during filming. In edit, it is vital to have the correct convergence point and yet the scope for changing convergence in post is limited.

K. Each camera can and will see colours, lens flares differently which must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

L. Frequently the alignment will be different and this must be corrected in post and this can be complicated and expensive. Often the solution is to convert one eye.

M. Polarisation will mean that there are image differences when filming reflective surfaces

N. VFX requires more work and longer render times. Simple things like rig removals can become very complicated and time consuming (as they discovered on Resident Evil, where what was expected to take a day, was taking a week, or two!).

Stereo Conversion – as a rough guide allow 5-10% increase on a 2D budget

PROS
i. Cost: it’s cheaper

ii. Shoot as normal but plan for 3D to maximize the effect

iii. Complete range of options. Can shoot on film (see latest Star Trek) with any film camera or use any digital camera

iv. Complete range of camera lenses

v. Complete flexibility to add depth even when using telephoto lenses

vi. In edit, complete flexibility to set the convergence

vii. In post, complete flexibility to set the depth and volume for each and every element in each and every scene.

viii. In post, complete flexibility to add or delete elements

ix. VFX is as per usual

Stereo Conversion – CONS
a. Crowds, rain, snow and smoke, sparks are more difficult to convert, but certainly not impossible.

There is a huge range in quality and price so it is important to choose a good company offering sensible prices, who have a great reel.

Originally posted at The 3D Company: “Native” 3D versus 2D to 3D conversion: Pros and Cons | THE 3D COMPANY

Security Toys…Uhm, I mean, Quality Control for Networks

Quality Control for a projector is lamps and lenses and knowing how to keep the management system working.

Quality Control for a network is knowing how people will break into it, and knowing where it will break. So in that regard we need to know things in the same manner as a plumber knows what goes on in the pipes.

Wireshark does some of that. Being able to break into the system does some of that. Because if you can, someone who smells a perfect digital print worth millions certainly will be able to.

Good luck.

Introduction To Wireshark

Register for a complimentary Network Monitoring and Troubleshooting For Dummies

Network Monitoring and Troubleshooting For Dummies