Budget Setup = non-pro

Pavel Houda · December 29th, 2009, 02:25 PM

I am interested in your plug-ins. This 3D technology path is lot more difficult to transition to than other technologies were. There are just too many things the producer can do badly. I think that the player makes the video bit jerky, perhaps stream rate at 1080p. Try to publish the same thing in anaglyph and see the smoothness. I think it will improve. Thanks for sharing your work.

Adam Stanislav · December 29th, 2009, 07:00 PM

Very well, I'll keep working on those plug-ins, though they will only be for the 32-bit version of Vegas, unfortunately.

Adam Stanislav · December 30th, 2009, 03:12 AM

I was able to incorporate my second plug-in into the first one (here is an example of what it does). That way I do not have to write three plug-ins, only two. It is 3 am now, so I think I'll call it day and go to bed. :)

Adam Stanislav · January 5th, 2010, 09:23 AM

I have just discovered a fluke in that YouTube 3D player. I made yet another test video (this time with a static 3D photograph I took last summer). It worked just fine at first. Then I thought it would be nice to add some sound to it and used YouTube's "AudioSwap".

Now it has some wild music in the soundtrack but no longer shows in 3D. Very strange.

By the way, this morning I watched all my test videos with the Stereoscopic Player software, and they all looked good, no retinal rivalry which I have been getting on YouTube. So all the problems I have been having with watching my tests are due to the limitations of the YouTube 3D player. This is good to know because I have been blaming myself.

As for the plug-in, the first three parts (combined in two plug-ins) are pretty much finished. The first part takes videos shot with the Loreo adapter and makes sure the left and right sides are positioned properly within the video frame.

The second one takes a 2D track and moves it closer to the viewer or away from him in 3D. This is useful when adding text to a 3D video.

The third one works on two tracks (left and right) and combines them into a single stereoscopic track either by shrinking them to half size and positioning them next to each other or above each other, or by creating an anaglyph. The video I mention above, the one that no longer shows in 3D on YouTube is an example of that.

And this test video was made using all three parts of the plug-in. I used the first one to separate the two views into two separate tracks, the second to recombine them into one track but shrunk to half-size so it can get some simple background on YouTube, and the third one to add some text.

Today I am going to be working on the fourth part, which I was not considering when I first started working on this plug-in. Namely, I am going to try to create some 3D transitions. I am not promising anything because I have to see if it really works first. And if it does not, I will remove the fourth part. The plug-in will still be quite useful without it.

Adam Stanislav · January 7th, 2010, 09:57 PM

I have added a transition to the plug-in. It was rather complicated to figure out how to do it so it really is a 3D transition, especially since it is a very basic transition, just a small square appearing on the screen and growing until it fills the frame.

I am not even sure it is obvious that it really is a 3D transition, so I need your opinion (I have been staring at it for so long that I am no longer objective about it and, as usual, tend to be very critical of it) whether working on those transitions is worth it.

I have made a very simple test, which shows a stereoscopic photograph (I wanted it to fill the screen and my videos only fill half of it) for two seconds, then takes ten seconds to transit to another photograph, which stays on for another two seconds. I made the transition last so long, so you can pause it easily and examine it, though, admittedly, examining it too much is what is making me so critical of it.

YouTube | Bororo 3D Transition Test

Adam Stanislav · January 8th, 2010, 02:16 PM

I'd really like some feedback here. I am putting a lot of time and energy into this plug-in, so I would like to know if anyone might find it useful...

Anyway, I have tried a different method of implementing the 3D transition. This one seems somewhat more clearly stereoscopic but it is causing me serious retinal rivalry. You can see it here. Does it seem more stereoscopic than the one mentioned in my last message before this? Is it too harsh on the eyes? I wish I had a way of seeing it with a method other than anaglyphic glasses.

I have been trying to decide which of the two methods to put in when I release the plug-in for download. Right now I am leaning towards leaving both methods in and letting the user decide which one to use. But if the second method causes more eye strain, will I be contributing to people having headaches just because some less experienced user will choose the wrong method for his videos?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

December 29th, 2009, 02:25 PM	#16
Pavel Houda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Laguna Hills, CA Posts: 352	I am interested in your plug-ins. This 3D technology path is lot more difficult to transition to than other technologies were. There are just too many things the producer can do badly. I think that the player makes the video bit jerky, perhaps stream rate at 1080p. Try to publish the same thing in anaglyph and see the smoothness. I think it will improve. Thanks for sharing your work.

December 29th, 2009, 07:00 PM	#17
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	Very well, I'll keep working on those plug-ins, though they will only be for the 32-bit version of Vegas, unfortunately.

December 30th, 2009, 03:12 AM	#18
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	I was able to incorporate my second plug-in into the first one (here is an example of what it does). That way I do not have to write three plug-ins, only two. It is 3 am now, so I think I'll call it day and go to bed. :)

January 5th, 2010, 09:23 AM	#19
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	I have just discovered a fluke in that YouTube 3D player. I made yet another test video (this time with a static 3D photograph I took last summer). It worked just fine at first. Then I thought it would be nice to add some sound to it and used YouTube's "AudioSwap". Now it has some wild music in the soundtrack but no longer shows in 3D. Very strange. By the way, this morning I watched all my test videos with the Stereoscopic Player software, and they all looked good, no retinal rivalry which I have been getting on YouTube. So all the problems I have been having with watching my tests are due to the limitations of the YouTube 3D player. This is good to know because I have been blaming myself. As for the plug-in, the first three parts (combined in two plug-ins) are pretty much finished. The first part takes videos shot with the Loreo adapter and makes sure the left and right sides are positioned properly within the video frame. The second one takes a 2D track and moves it closer to the viewer or away from him in 3D. This is useful when adding text to a 3D video. The third one works on two tracks (left and right) and combines them into a single stereoscopic track either by shrinking them to half size and positioning them next to each other or above each other, or by creating an anaglyph. The video I mention above, the one that no longer shows in 3D on YouTube is an example of that. And this test video was made using all three parts of the plug-in. I used the first one to separate the two views into two separate tracks, the second to recombine them into one track but shrunk to half-size so it can get some simple background on YouTube, and the third one to add some text. Today I am going to be working on the fourth part, which I was not considering when I first started working on this plug-in. Namely, I am going to try to create some 3D transitions. I am not promising anything because I have to see if it really works first. And if it does not, I will remove the fourth part. The plug-in will still be quite useful without it.

January 7th, 2010, 09:57 PM	#20
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	I have added a transition to the plug-in. It was rather complicated to figure out how to do it so it really is a 3D transition, especially since it is a very basic transition, just a small square appearing on the screen and growing until it fills the frame. I am not even sure it is obvious that it really is a 3D transition, so I need your opinion (I have been staring at it for so long that I am no longer objective about it and, as usual, tend to be very critical of it) whether working on those transitions is worth it. I have made a very simple test, which shows a stereoscopic photograph (I wanted it to fill the screen and my videos only fill half of it) for two seconds, then takes ten seconds to transit to another photograph, which stays on for another two seconds. I made the transition last so long, so you can pause it easily and examine it, though, admittedly, examining it too much is what is making me so critical of it. YouTube \| Bororo 3D Transition Test

January 8th, 2010, 02:16 PM	#21
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	I'd really like some feedback here. I am putting a lot of time and energy into this plug-in, so I would like to know if anyone might find it useful... Anyway, I have tried a different method of implementing the 3D transition. This one seems somewhat more clearly stereoscopic but it is causing me serious retinal rivalry. You can see it here. Does it seem more stereoscopic than the one mentioned in my last message before this? Is it too harsh on the eyes? I wish I had a way of seeing it with a method other than anaglyphic glasses. I have been trying to decide which of the two methods to put in when I release the plug-in for download. Right now I am leaning towards leaving both methods in and letting the user decide which one to use. But if the second method causes more eye strain, will I be contributing to people having headaches just because some less experienced user will choose the wrong method for his videos?